Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Income Tax

David Amess: What representations he has received regarding future levels of income tax.

Dawn Primarolo: The Government have received a number of representations on the level of income tax, and we have committed ourselves not to raise the basic or top rates of income tax within the lifetime of this Parliament.
	May I draw the House's attention to an announcement in a written statement that I made earlier this morning? The Government will legislate to ensure that payments by the Thalidomide Trust to people affected by the drug thalidomide will in future be exempt from income tax. That change will be worth about £1 million a year—up to £3,000 for each beneficiary of the trust. I know that Members on both sides of the House will welcome the announcement.

David Amess: It is wonderful news that the Minister has accepted the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and is helping thalidomide victims rather than wasting taxpayers' money looking for weapons of mass destruction.
	Does the Minister accept that since 1997 there have been 66 tax rises and that each householder is paying an extra £5,000 a year? As she is getting advice from the Chancellor, is he authorising her to tell the House that those tax rises by stealth will continue?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman spoiled the welcome given to the change for the beneficiaries of the Thalidomide Trust. For the past 30 years, as he well knows, Governments of all political persuasions have struggled to settle that matter and it should be welcome that a restructuring of the trust will ensure that income tax is not paid on benefits from it.
	The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. If he looks at the facts, he will see that the Government have cut income tax and introduced the 10p rate and that, on average, households are £850 a year better off in real terms, that families with children are, on average, £1,350 a year better off in real terms and that pensioners are better off in real terms. By October 2004 about 18.3 million households will have gained as a result of the personal tax and benefit reforms that the Government have undertaken.

Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. When considering further tax provisions, will she give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not move from his programme for providing education, health, local government, transport, defence and all the other services on which people rely?

Dawn Primarolo: Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will have noticed both from the 2004 Budget statement and from the spending review announcement made earlier this week that the Government's finances are sound and that the forecast is for spending more on public services over the next period—on police, child care, more nurses and teachers—and for investment in housing, transport and our security. Those are all things that the Government are committed to, but the Conservatives will cut them.

David Ruffley: The right hon. Lady will know that in 1997 2.1 million people paid top-rate tax. As a result of the Chancellor's tax policies, last year 3.27 million people paid top-rate tax. Will she give us her estimate of the number of people who will pay top-rate tax in the current tax year?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows from his constituency experience, unemployment is down—[Interruption.] Just a moment. Unemployment in his constituency is down by 83 per cent. During the period 1997–98 to 2002–03, average earnings went up by 25 per cent. while prices went up by only 12 per cent. Employment has increased by nearly 1.8 million since the spring of 1997. The number of people in work is at a record level, and that is clearly reflected in the tax system; more people are working and earning more money and therefore contributing to public services.

Oliver Letwin: It is clear that the Paymaster General has not yet heard of the word "threshold".
	On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the right hon. Lady's welcome announcement in response to the pleas of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) about tax relief for thalidomide victims.
	Derek Scott, a former adviser to the Prime Minister, has told us that he would not be surprised if there were tax rises under a third-term Labour Government. Will the Paymaster General give the House an assurance that if the Labour Government are re-elected and if the Chancellor is either the next Chancellor or Prime Minister, there will be no increase in either income tax or national insurance?

Dawn Primarolo: I am perfectly happy to share with all Members our pleasure that the proposals with regard to the Thalidomide Trust have now been sorted out, but the right hon. Gentleman really should not keep trying to claim as his original idea every good thing that the Government do. As he well knows, the Government's spending commitments are properly financed over the spending round and in the statements made in the Budget 2004. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the Government are committed in the lifetime of this Parliament not to raise either the basic or the higher rate of tax. Indeed, we have been reducing the tax burden, particularly on those who are the lowest paid.

HIPC Initiative

Julia Drown: Whether it is his policy to support a write-off of the UK's share of the multilateral debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries.

Mark Lazarowicz: What his policy is on writing off the UK's share of the multilateral debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries.

Gordon Brown: The UK believes that more must be done to ensure debt sustainability in the world's poorest countries. We are proposing that the international community review further debt relief for the poorest countries, including making better use of IMF gold using a revaluation or off-market transactions, so that, to match bilateral debt relief, which we provide at up to 100 per cent., we can begin to consider how we provide multilateral debt relief of up to 100 per cent. as well.

Julia Drown: I welcome the Chancellor's response and his commitment to help the poorest countries in the world, which is shown by his already having committed this country to almost doubling overseas aid and, on Monday, by being the first Chancellor to set a date by which he hopes that this country will spend the internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent. of our income on international aid. Will he comment on what that might mean for the poorest people of the world and contrast that with what might happen if the Opposition, who plan to cut overseas aid by £800 million, were in charge?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady cannot ask that one.

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on all those points. First, the additional money that we are providing in overseas development aid, which I was able to announce on Monday, will increase the percentage of GDP that is spent on overseas aid from 0.26 per cent. in 1997—it had been reduced over the previous 20 years—to 0.47 per cent. in 2007–08, with our objective of moving towards 0.7 per cent. by 2013. We have made decisions in this spending round to provide the necessary money and debt relief, so that we can achieve that figure by 2007–08. I wish that there was an all-party consensus on providing that level of development aid.

Mark Lazarowicz: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I welcome the announcement made on Monday about the increase in overseas aid. I have already been contacted by a lot of my constituents and organisations in my area who have been calling for that increase, and I am sure that my colleagues have had a similar response. Does my right hon. Friend consider that it might now be appropriate for the many organisations that have been campaigning on this issue to direct more efforts, both nationally and perhaps internationally, to get the richest countries in the world to back the proposals for the international finance facility, which could have a very important role to play in the write-off of debt owed by the poorest countries?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) for their interest and the work that they have done in their constituencies. It is important to recognise that, even if we are able to increase our bilateral aid very substantially, the whole world community will need to provide far more development aid in the next 10 years if we are to have a chance of meeting our millennium development goals. That is why, last Friday, I was very happy to be able to present our proposals in Rome to a group of the Churches, backed up by representatives of countries from all over the world. We are winning support for the international finance facility. It would be unfortunate, however, if the Conservative party, which supported the international finance facility, were to continue with the policy that it has now adopted to cut overseas development aid. I hope that the Conservatives will cease that policy and start to move towards a sensible policy, so that we can promote action together in the international community.

Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the Chancellor would accept that it is important that we should seek to bring good governance and responsibility to the heavily indebted poor countries, but I am sure that he would also agree that it is absolutely crazy that the financial aid that should be given to those poor countries is spent only on repaying the debt that they already owe. Will he accept therefore that there is, in fact, widespread support in all parts of the House, including the Conservative and Unionist party, for debt to be taken away from those countries, so that the money that they are given can bring about improvements in education, health and other matters?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the enlightened view that is coming from at least part of the Conservative Back Benches on the matter. It is important to realise that we must move forward with debt relief if we are to give the countries in which he is interested the chance of development over the next few years. As we have a 100 per cent. write-off of bilateral aid, it is possible to cut the debt bill of those countries. However, while only 50 per cent. of multilateral aid is being written off, they have substantial debts to pay. The results can be seen in countries such as Uganda, which has moved to class sizes of 50 compared with 100. In other African countries, 1 million children got primary education in one day as a result of debt relief, which released resources for education. However, it was unfortunate that the Conservative party issued a document after Monday's spending statement saying:
	"Are you going to cut aid to developing countries? This is another example of big Government."
	It must think again.

Andrew Turner: When a Government spokesman describes conditions in Kenya as a "gigantic looting spree", points out that corruption under the new Government may be worth $188 million and says that if Kenya's governance was less corrupt it could afford to pay its own development budget rather than going to donors cap in hand, does that form part of the Government's strategy to ensure that poor people in this country are not paying for rich people in developing countries?

Gordon Brown: We heard an enlightened view from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) earlier and now we have heard a completely retrograde view. We have taken action with other countries to ensure that there is transparency and to tackle corruption. There is no stronger advocate of tackling corruption than the Prime Minister, and work is being done by the Commission for Africa.
	It is absolutely ludicrous to give people the impression that Africa's problems can be solved by cutting international aid to the continent. When the Conservatives started in office, $33 per head was spent on aid to sub-Saharan Africa, but the figure was $20 per head by the time that they finished—the aid halved. Some 70 million children in Africa have no schools to go to. The AIDS epidemic is affecting 24 million people. Infant mortality rates are such that 30,000 children die each day. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about the idea that those problems could be solved without international development aid.

Bill Tynan: The whole House will congratulate the Chancellor on his commitment to eliminate global poverty. Twenty-seven HIPC countries currently qualify for assistance, which leaves 15 other countries, the people of which are suffering from abject poverty and a lack of education and clean water. Will the international community get together to consider what can be done? I understand the problems due to civil wars in some of the countries, and that some are ruled by military juntas, but their populations have no influence on that, so it is important to give them some hope. Will the international community do something together to alleviate their problems?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in the matter. I announced on Monday that the International Development Secretary had agreed that £150 million of aid would be set aside for the needs of Sudan. There is abject poverty, and conditions in many places are worse than those in 1985, when Live Aid started. However, we also said that we could not provide the money until there was peace and the issues of conflict had been dealt with. Of course, there must be transparency and money must be able to flow to the poorest people, but the need for the money is obvious. On Sunday, the shadow International Development Secretary said that he also wanted to make a commitment to 0.7 per cent., but said:
	"It is for Oliver Letwin, the shadow Chancellor, to make a judgment."
	How can the Conservative party claim to support international development aid if it would cut it by hundreds of millions of pounds? How can it claim to support the third world when it would cut aid massively?

Public Borrowing

Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about his proposals to change the level of public borrowing.

Gordon Brown: The 2004 Budget set out the detailed Government forecast for the public finances up until 2008–09. These showed that the Government are on track with our borrowing figures to meet both our strict fiscal rules over the economic cycle.

Desmond Swayne: Does the Chancellor accept the rather subtly worded warning from the Governor of the Bank of England that the Chancellor's current levels of spending and borrowing are in danger of causing the economy to overheat?

Gordon Brown: The Governor said that the automatic stabilisers had worked during a period of a world downturn, so when tax revenues were lower and social security needs were higher, borrowing was higher. That is, after all, what has happened in every country around the world. The only difference is that our levels of borrowing are lower than those in most other countries. The Governor of the Bank of England said that he supports the fiscal discipline that we have shown over the past seven years.

Anne Campbell: My constituents are delighted that we are enjoying the longest period of sustained economic growth on record and the longest sustained investment in public services for a generation. In the light of that fantastic economic success, how do debt levels under this Government compare with those under the last Conservative Government?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend has been powerful in her advocacy of both international aid to be raised and the scientific community to be given the money that is necessary to invest in this country's future. I cannot think of anything on which there is greater consensus than the issues of investment in science, infrastructure and transport. Only one group is outside the consensus—the modern Conservative party.
	As for debt levels, the Conservative party talks as if there were some golden years a few years ago, but borrowing went up to the equivalent of £80 billion and debt was at 44 per cent. of gross domestic product. We have reduced that to 34 per cent. of GDP, one of the lowest rates in the industrialised world.

Ann Winterton: Will the Treasury make up the difference that will result from the loss of European Union structural funding to the United Kingdom regions post-2006? If so, will that add to borrowing requirements?

Gordon Brown: We are committed to no loss for the regions as a result of any changes, although they have not yet been decided in the structural funds. It is interesting, however, to hear a Conservative Member advocate more public spending by the Government. How does the hon. Lady square that policy with that of the shadow Chancellor, who wishes to cut spending on trade and industry and regional development, while also cutting spending on defence, law and order and international development? Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can tell us how he will add up his figures?

Nigel Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public borrowing, within the fiscal rules, is essential to sustain a programme of investment that is needed to overcome the gross neglect of public investment during 18 years of Conservative government?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a distinguished member of the Treasury Committee, for that question. The neglect of investment under the Conservative Government was such that there had to be, and still has to be, a major programme of investment in health, education and transport. Members of the Conservative party know perfectly well from their constituencies about the need for new investment. Entering a general election with a pledge card of "Cut defence, cut law and order and policing, cut international development, cut science and transport spending, and put all the money from the NHS into private health care" is not a winning formula for the Conservative party.

Howard Flight: With no slack in the economy and the structural deficit that the Chancellor has created, by how much does he plan to raise taxes after the general election, beyond the 8 per cent. rise already planned?

Gordon Brown: Our public spending programmes are properly funded. In fact, because of our economic success, the choice that we had in the Budget was whether to cut taxes or to put money into public services. We decided—rightly, in my view—to put the money into the public services that desperately need it. The shadow Chief Secretary talks about the difficulties that the economy faces. Will he confirm that his view is still the one that he expressed just a year and a half ago when he said that we were facing an economic crisis, analogous to the 1930s?

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has placed great emphasis on the need for public investment in the future of our country, to make up for the damage caused by the Tories. Given that we now have an historically low, and internationally low, level of public borrowing, is there not scope for my right hon. Friend to relax his constraints on public borrowing for investment purposes and for him to replace some private investment with public investment, to the benefit of the Treasury?

Gordon Brown: No, we are going to keep to our fiscal rules. I believe that the country will support a Government who not only set fiscal rules that make sense of what should happen in an economy over the cycle but meet those fiscal rules. Of course we will get the balance right between private and public investment. Net public investment was 0.8 per cent. of gross domestic product when we came into power and it is now above 2 per cent. of GDP, so we are investing more in the future. I am really surprised that the shadow Chancellor, who has now put forward all his proposals on public expenditure, cannot even come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about them.

Government Staffing Levels

Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on the staffing levels of central Government Departments.

Paul Boateng: The 2004 spending review has set out wide-ranging changes to central Government Departments. This means a gross reduction of 84,150 posts by April 2008; 13,550 posts are to be redeployed to front-line areas.

Angela Watkinson: In his statement on Monday, the Chancellor announced a gross reduction of 84,150 civil service posts to release resources from administration to be invested in the front line. However, the devil was in the detail, and we learned that 13,000 of those posts would not be cut but transferred to front-line services. Will the Minister explain what those 13,000 re-allocations to front-line roles are?

Paul Boateng: There is no secret about this. I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the situation. We announced in the Budget our intention to redeploy to the front line. What does it mean? It means that in the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, where some 10,000 people are to be redeployed to the front line, additional help will be available to get people into work. It means looking at the people involved in back-office functions and seeing how they can be either retrained or redeployed to provide front-line services. That has made a difference already, as the new deal has demonstrated. That is why this Government have been able to create 2 million new jobs since 1997, and why it would be such a disaster if the Conservatives ever had their way and scrapped the new deal, cutting the valuable work of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that, while Labour Members support cuts to make a more efficient civil service, the Department for Education and Skills, which is quite small, has been given heavy new responsibilities under "Every Child Matters" and the Children Bill at the same time as the cuts have been announced across the board. Will there be room for negotiation so that the Department for Education and Skills can deliver the expanding educational role in which the Government are investing?

Paul Boateng: The figures produced by the Department for Education and Skills take into account the work that it has taken on board as a result of the children's Green Paper. They also take into account the efficiencies that the Department believes it will be able to find in order to increase the support available to the front line, whether in relation to schools, the Learning and Skills Council or the work of further education colleges. In all those areas, the Department is at the forefront of recognising that we really can unlock efficiencies and resources, apply them to the front line, and continue the improvement in results in schools and FE colleges, all of which would be put in grave peril if the Conservatives were ever to implement their cuts in that Department's budget.

Vincent Cable: How much money will the Government save by cutting 84,000 public servants? A rough estimate of the saving is £3 billion to £4 billion, which is only a fraction of the £20 billion that must be saved under Gershon. Is Digby Jones right to assert that the Government need to cut some 300,000 jobs in the public sector in order to meet their efficiency targets?

Paul Boateng: Digby Jones welcomed the Government's proposals because he recognised that the savings involve not only a reduction in posts, but procurement and the better use of IT. The savings include cash and other resources, which will be redeployed to the front line, and Digby Jones recognised that that added benefit is part of the proposal introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to remove 1,000 jobs and increase the resources available to the regional development agencies. That is good news for the DTI and for business, which is why Digby Jones welcomed it.

David Chaytor: I welcome the Government's intention to decentralise a considerable number of central Government jobs to the regions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the previous Government had done that 25 years ago, the current regional disparities would not exist? Although my constituents are extremely fortunate to enjoy virtually full employment, other parts of Greater Manchester and south-east Lancashire would welcome decentralised jobs from London. Will my right hon. Friend carefully examine Greater Manchester's claim on some of those jobs?

Paul Boateng: Individual Departments will determine how they relocate their functions and the jobs that come with them. My hon. Friend knows that the Lyons review utilised a formula that identified Manchester in the upper quartile of places to which Departments are likely to plan to relocate, which is good news for Manchester. When Conservative Members had stewardship of the economy, they singularly failed to take advantage of the benefits of relocation, as they singularly failed to implement efficiencies, which we are introducing. The civil service is smaller now than it was in all but one of the years in which Conservative Members had stewardship of the economy.

Mark Field: In implementing the staffing level reviews, will the Chief Secretary urgently meet the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I understand that British Trade International is likely to be subject to considerable cuts, which will undermine our export drive, especially in key regions such as the Caribbean and Latin America, where we have long-standing links.

Paul Boateng: On the contrary, British Trade International is likely to benefit from the efficiency savings identified by my right hon. Friends and from extra money provided in the course of the spending review. That will better equip it for the challenge of securing inward investment, which benefits every nation and every region of our country. The hon. Gentleman should warmly welcome the efficiency savings, which are good news for the Department of Trade and Industry and for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Lawrie Quinn: I welcome the transfer of more than 20,000 jobs to the regions following the Lyons review. Is there further scope to explore the possibility of moving even more civil service jobs to the regions to maximise efficiency and ensure that the whole country is involved in delivering a service to the nation?

Paul Boateng: Sir Michael Lyons himself saw the review as the beginning of a process in which Departments would look to the regions as likely places to locate functions and jobs. The aim is to create a culture in which London and the south-east are not seen as the automatic beneficiaries of changes and developments in policy.

Oliver Letwin: What the Chief Secretary's answer to my hon. Friend actually means is that the cuts in central Departments that the Chancellor announced are 71,000, not 84,000. [Laughter.] Well, they are. There is nothing that Ministers can do to deny their own figures, and 71,000, not 84,000, is the number shown for actual cuts in central Government departmental staff. Does not page   8 of the leaked interim Gershon report, which I have in my hand, tell us that the Chancellor is planning to add 360,000 extra public sector workers, and is it not true that on current trends half of those will be back-office staff?

Paul Boateng: I do not comment on leaked documents. However, I can refer the right hon. Gentleman to the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made to the House, which identified gross reductions in posts of 84,150 and net reductions in posts of 70,600. That is as plain as pikestaff. It is equally plain that the right hon. Gentleman has committed his party to a two-year freeze in departmental spending. That would mean cuts in transport of £1.8 billion, cuts in local government of £4.8 billion, cuts in the Home Office of £1.6 billion, cuts in defence of £2.6 billion, and cuts in international development of £800 million. That is the reality of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. It is time that he either admitted those figures or got to the Dispatch Box to deny them. Let us wait and see what he does.

Oliver Letwin: I very well understand that the Chief Secretary does not want to engage in defending the Chancellor's arithmetic, but the Government's own figures show that of the 496,000 extra public sector workers that he and the Chancellor have added in the past seven years, half have been in back offices. Why, then, should we believe that the back-office proportion of the next 360,000 will be any different, particularly given that I heard the Chancellor telling the Select Committee this morning that he did not know the figure? How can the Chief Secretary expect the Treasury to retain credibility if the Chancellor tells us, and the world, that he is reducing back-office staff by tens of thousands, when he is planning, according to his own reports, to increase back-office staff by more than 100,000?

Paul Boateng: We have already begun the process of redeployment to the front line. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at the Department for Work and Pensions, where the merger of the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency has already resulted in a reduction of more than 6,000 posts. That is the reality.
	The question that the right hon. Gentleman fails to answer, and the reality that he fails to comprehend, is that we believe that the state has a role. We believe that it is right, in this spending review, to ensure that we create 143,000 more front-line health workers, 33,000 more criminal justice workers and approximately 55,000 more early years and child care workers. We make no apology for that. We want the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to tell us just how many front-line jobs they would cut and how they will make their sums add up, because in the past they have singularly failed to convince either the House or the country in that respect.

Employment

John McFall: What representations he has received on his measures in the pre-Budget report to help people into work.

Ian Stewart: If he will make a statement on the effect on the economy of present employment levels.

Gordon Brown: With unemployment low and the economy growing, the pre-Budget report will report on the new deal for skills and how we can help people to obtain the skills that are necessary to fill the 600,000 vacancies in the economy. That will require us to maintain, not abolish, the new deal.

John McFall: What progress is being made on the new deal for the over-50s, where unemployment is still comparatively high? Mindful that there are 630,000 job vacancies, what measures is my right hon. Friend taking in the tax and benefits system, which in the past has acted as a disincentive to unemployed people moving into work?

Gordon Brown: There will be some worry for Conservative Members about unemployment among the over-50s after the next general election, and the new deal for the over-50s will be of great help to them.
	Of the 1.8 million new jobs that we have created since 1997, almost half have gone to people over 50, so it is not the case that people over 50 have not been offered jobs or taken them up. It is true, however, that a large number of people over 50 still, for a variety of reasons, do not find that the tax and benefits system has helped them as it might. That is why we introduced the new deal for the over-50s and special incentives through the new deal for the over-50s, and why we will continue to address the issue in order to move towards full employment. I have to tell the House, however, that we could not move as fast or as far to full employment without the assistance of the new deal, so the Conservative party should reconsider its decision to abolish it.

Ian Stewart: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour Government's creation of a stable economic climate and their commitment to public expenditure has led to record low unemployment in Eccles, which is 46.6 per cent. lower than it was in 1997? Does he agree that that forms the bedrock for new investment in Eccles where, for example, Salford City Reds rugby league club has plans for a new stadium and associated development which, with the help of measures outlined in the pre-Budget report, will create about 2,000 new jobs? By the way, we have plenty of brownfield sites for public servants.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The progress made in tackling unemployment in his constituency is most welcome. Although the new deal finances many things, it does not yet finance stadiums, but I hope that progress can be made both on sporting facilities and on raising employment levels in his constituency. The fact is that, without the new deal, more people would be unemployed today. Even in the constituency of the shadow Chief Secretary unemployment has been reduced from 2.7 per cent. to just 1 per cent. under a Labour Government, so how can he say that the situation is analogous to what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?

Nigel Evans: Is not the Chancellor worried about employment levels in manufacturing industry, because there have been a great many job losses in manufacturing throughout the country over the past seven years? Does he take any responsibility for that, following the introduction of the climate change levy?

Gordon Brown: I notice that the Conservative party is now promising to abolish the climate change levy and the aggregates levy, so it must have the means to replace that income. As far as we are concerned—[Interruption.] It is revenue neutral only because we reduced national insurance as a result of it. Presumably, if the Conservatives abolished the climate change levy, they would increase national insurance. Is that another commitment by the shadow Chief Secretary and the shadow Chancellor?

Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that the project that followed the £24 million that he gave us for flattening the Shirebrook pit tips has been completed, and there is a prospect of 2,000 jobs on that business park? That is one reason why coalfield unemployment has gone down. The Markham Bolsover employment zone, which has received the first £15 million of the funds that it needs, will give rise to 5,000 jobs. I urge my right hon. Friend to remember the site, which is located at junction 29A of the M1, and to etch it on his memory. We will need about another £20 million to complete the project, but those 5,000 jobs will be the biggest job development since the industrial revolution and will replace the 3,000 jobs that the Tories got rid of when the pits went.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has fought long and hard to replace the mining jobs that were lost in his constituency with new economic developments such as those that he described. We look forward not just to having full employment in one region but to achieving full employment in all the country's regions and nations. However, to pursue a matter raised in the Chamber today, if we are to continue to do so, we must have fiscal prudence as well. If the shadow Chancellor is now saying that he will replace the climate change levy with an £800 million increase in employees' national insurance to make the tax revenue neutral, the Opposition have, amazingly, announced another tax rise.

Roy Beggs: Does the Chancellor accept that the shortage of home helps and community care workers must be tackled so that we can deliver proper care in the community? Will he seek to provide incentives through training and the new deal to encourage more unemployed people to offer such a service? Our hospitals will benefit, and we will get patients into their own homes much faster if a proper care in the community service is available.

Gordon Brown: We are increasing the level of personal social services finance as a result of the spending settlement. That will enable us to help more people to stay in their homes and to move people out of hospital more quickly into either care homes or back into their own homes. It will allow us to expand social services in our country.
	We also wish to expand pre-school care, about which the hon. Gentleman asked, by training more carers. As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, if he wishes to approach the Treasury, we will explain all the measures available to encourage the growth of child care and pre-school provision for his constituency, including tax relief on the £50 that an employer would pay to an employee to allow them to buy their child care. The rises in social services budgets are possible only because we are prepared to put more money into our public services. I ask the hon. Gentleman to contemplate a situation in which the Conservative party would cut social services expenditure, as well as industry, science, defence and law and order expenditure—that is the fate that the shadow Chancellor would leave us to.

Millennium Development Goals

Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development goals.

Win Griffiths: If he will make a statement on recent progress in attaining the objectives of the millennium development goals.

Gordon Brown: On current proposals, the majority of countries will fail to meet most of the millennium development goals by 2015. That is why the UK has proposed an international finance facility.

Ben Chapman: Is not debt incurred in a concessionary way and responsibly managed a good thing in developmental terms? Is not the problem debt that is not well used, not well spent, and badly managed by the Governments responsible? If we are to help African countries to reach their millennium development goals, and to help them in particular to tackle HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, do we not need to ensure that rich countries fulfil the obligations entered into at Monterrey? What pressure is my right hon. Friend putting on other nations in that regard, particularly on the United States, whose developmental assistance at this time is only 0.2 per cent. of GDP?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken an interest in these matters. Tuberculosis kills 2 million people a year, but to be able to protect people against it would cost very little if proper inoculation and vaccination were available. Equally, malaria carries off more than 1 million people a year, yet with expenditure on nets costing a few dollars, we could prevent avoidable deaths. That is why the global health fund and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation are important. That is why it is necessary to honour the Monterrey consensus, whereby the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe would provide an extra $9 billion in aid by 2006, and the US would provide $7 billion.
	Contrary to what my hon. Friend said, the United States is moving ahead to make that money available, although its debt-to-GDP ratio is low. The question is whether we can use those additions in aid to borrow on capital markets and to have an international finance facility, which, with repayment over 30 years, could put up extra funds that would enable us to meet the millennium development targets over 10 years.

Win Griffiths: I thank my right hon. Friend for his great focus on the millennium development goals while in office. Given the problems of war in many parts of Africa, to what extent does he collaborate and co-operate with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and in the Department for International Development to focus on getting peace in those areas, to make it much easier for those goals to be attained?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been involved in these matters over many years. Twenty-seven countries now have debt relief, but there would be at least 37 if the 10 countries or more that are engaged in conflict were out of conflict and able to be in a position to claim debt relief. As I said about Sudan, as long as there is not peace, we cannot get resources to the people who need them. If there were peace, and if we could broker a peace deal, in which Britain was involved, £150 million that we have allocated could be spent on helping people who are in grave difficulty in Sudan. We must therefore work closely: the Africa Commission set up by the Prime Minister is considering aid, peacekeeping and economic development, and a combination of measures in those three areas will bring new hope to Africa.

David Tredinnick: During his discussions with African Finance Ministers, does the Chancellor ever raise the question of how much aid reaches the people for whom it is intended? Will he now answer the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) about the statement made by one of his colleagues about perceived corruption in Kenya? What does he propose to do about that?

Gordon Brown: Where there is corruption, it must be dealt with. Funds should not go to regimes in which we cannot guarantee that the money will go where it is intended to go—in most cases, to education and health programmes designed to help the poorest people of the country involved.
	Let me repeat that even if all these things are done, more resources will be needed for both Africa and developing countries. The Conservative party cannot escape its responsibilities to the poorest countries of the world by saying that there is no need for more aid if corruption is dealt with. There will be a need for more aid—and how can the Conservative party support more aid when they are cutting the aid budget?

Tony Worthington: In his discussions with African Finance Ministers and his colleagues in the World Bank, could the Chancellor make it a condition of the poverty reduction strategy papers and the debate about the millennium development goals that African Parliaments are fully involved in dialogue about those papers? We may talk of country ownership, but that means nothing if the Parliaments themselves have not built up the skills necessary for them to be involved.

Gordon Brown: It is proposed that the poverty reduction strategies should be not just country-owned, but owned by civil society. My hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters and has been an International Development Minister, is trying to build links with African parliamentarians to bring about a strong civil-society presence and pressure for change. That is why his work is so important.
	In the Africa Commission, we want to consult and listen to the Parliaments and the civil societies of African countries. I believe that we will achieve progress in Africa not just by talking to Governments, but by talking to people who were elected but are not members of Governments and to pressure groups and community organisations. There is, however, still the need for us to offer more aid as part of the process.

Development Aid

Helen Jackson: What proposals he has to enhance the resources available for aid and development.

John Healey: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Monday, by 2007–08 UK development aid will rise to nearly £6.5 billion, equal to 0.47 per cent. of gross national income.

Helen Jackson: We have talked a great deal about the aid budget today. The important thing about the 0.7 per cent. target, which is not particularly magical in itself, is that it has been internationally agreed. Moreover, we know that every £1 million of overseas aid saves lives. I particularly welcome the extra £1.5 billion for HIV/AIDS aid and development, which is symbolic of that saving of lives. In what ways—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Minister has got the drift.

John Healey: I certainly have, and my hon. Friend is right. We want to go further. If we are to meet the millennium development goals, not least for health, we must double the current aid flows. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has proposed an international finance facility.
	This view has been rightly expressed:
	"If we are to be taken seriously as a party of government which cares about the most vulnerable people on the planet, there has to be a public spending commitment."
	Those are the words of the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. We on the Government Front Bench agree with them, but the shadow Chancellor does not. The shadow Chancellor will cut, not increase, the aid going to the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet. That is the shadow Cabinet; those are spending plans rooted in chaos and confusion.

Chris Bryant: It is obviously important that our aid budget is increasing, and Members across the House applaud the Government for what they announced earlier this week. Is it not also important, however, to ensure that more money goes to the poorest countries in the world? How are the Government doing in persuading our EU colleagues not just to increase their aid, but to ensure that it goes to the poorest countries?

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As he knows, the spending review settlement was in part designed to ensure that at least 90 per cent. of Britain's aid over the next three years does indeed go to the poorest countries. He will also know that the task of the Department for International Development is in part to put pressure on the European Union and on other multilateral aid programmes to ensure that such aid is delivered more effectively. The spending review announcements have been widely backed—by charities, the churches, campaigners and Opposition Back Benchers—but they have not been backed by the shadow Chancellor. I do hope that he will reconsider his plan to cut the aid budget by £800 million if the Conservatives regain power.

Personal Saving

Peter Luff: What measures he is taking to increase personal saving.

Ruth Kelly: As well as creating an economy with low interest rates, the Government have introduced reforms such as individual savings accounts, the 10p starting rate for tax and the new child trust fund, and we have radically reformed and simplified financial regulation and pensions. Net wealth has risen by more than 50 per cent. since 1997.

Peter Luff: Treasury Ministers in general and the Chancellor in particular remind me of the boxer in Simon and Garfunkel's song of the same name: a man who hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. Why do the Government disregard the collapse of the savings culture in this country—a collapse that was caused by endless fiddling with tax-free savings schemes, the £5 billion raid on personal pensions and the massive expansion of means-testing?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman has got his facts absolutely wrong. Let us look at what has actually happened. The hon. Gentleman knows that reform of advance corporation tax was part of a process of widespread corporate tax reform, in order to promote investment that will benefit savers in the long term. He knows that ISAs have been far more popular than their predecessors, TESSAs and PEPs; indeed, one in three of the population now saves in an ISA product. He knows that we increased the limits from £5,000 and £3,000 when we introduced the scheme to kick-start ISAs; they have been successful.

Gordon Prentice: A few moments ago, I was Upstairs in Committee agreeing an increase of 7.8 per cent. in the adult minimum wage—it will be introduced in October—on top of the previous year's 7.1 per cent. increase. My question, however, is: what can we do to encourage people on low and modest incomes to save?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our priority must be to help those on low and moderate incomes. Of course, our first priority was to tackle pensioner poverty, and through the introduction of the pension credit, we have been successful in doing so. Now, we must make it as easy as possible to save, which is why we are committed to wholesale reform of the regulation and taxation of pensions. The introduction of new stakeholder products makes it much easier for people on low and moderate incomes to save.

Colin Breed: The Minister mentioned a 50 per cent. rise in national wealth. How much of that is due to inflated property values, rather than pensions, shares and other savings?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman knows that house prices have risen since 1997. Houses are an important store of value, and it is important that we look at assets as well as savings when considering these issues, but we cannot be complacent about what is happening to savings. Our analysis shows that 3 million people could be seriously undersaving, which is why we have a strategy to help people make informed choices about the future. We are concentrating on new products, on overhauling regulation and taxation, and on enabling informed choice.

James Plaskitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the savings industry itself must take some responsibility for ongoing problems in the savings field? She will know that the Treasury Committee has been looking at this issue for the past few months. We have uncovered endless examples of mis-selling, lack of transparency, opaque products, over-complexity and rip-off commission structures. Does she agree that the industry itself can contribute to solving such problems?

Ruth Kelly: I do, and I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this issue. It is absolutely true that in the past, the savings industry has been characterised by opacity and complexity. It is also right that we as a Government deal with that by shifting consumer protection away from the sales process and more towards the regulation of products, so that people can buy a stakeholder product—perhaps even during their lunch hour—that will suit their savings needs. That will make it much easier for people to make informed choices about their future savings. Such measures accompany the work being done by the Department for Work and Pensions. Over the next few years, millions of people will for the first time receive a combined forecast of their likely pension income. It is only right that we work with industry and with firms to promote employer take-up of schemes, to look at ways of automatically enrolling individuals in pension schemes, and to see how we can make it much easier for people to save.

Mark Prisk: Despite the Financial Secretary's fanciful claims, the reality is that, over the last seven years, the Chancellor has repeatedly cut tax incentives for savers; indeed, he has now removed tax credits for ISAs, costing savers another £250 million. Given that the savings ratio has already halved since 1997, why are the Government yet again penalising savers, whether they are at work or at lunch?

Ruth Kelly: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has studied the latest figures on the savings ratio, but perhaps he will understand that the savings ratio varies with the economic cycle. At a time of boom and bust, the savings ratio is artificially inflated as people protect themselves against rising unemployment. I have said that we are not complacent; we are determined to tackle undersaving and to make sure that people can make informed choices about their future. That is why the DWP is introducing its informed choice strategy and why we are radically simplifying the regulation and taxation of pensions.

Librarian's Retirement

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House. I have received a letter from the Librarian, indicating her wish to retire at the end of this year. I will arrange for the text of the letter to be printed in the Official Report.
	Miss Priscilla Baines has served the House for almost 37 years, the last five of them as our Librarian. During her stewardship, the Library has continued to develop and expand, and her team has risen to meet the challenges that new technology has presented. Miss Baines has faithfully served Members of the House of Commons since 1968 and I suspect all of us have cause to be grateful to her for her diligence and expertise in finding that piece of information that we have needed at one stage or another to complete our research on a particular point.
	I know that all Members will join me in thanking Miss Baines for her unstinting and devoted service to the House. We wish her a long and happy retirement.
	I should like to take this opportunity of expressing our thanks to members of her team in the Library who, with Miss Baines, have provided us with the excellent service that we enjoy.
	Miss Baines will retire on 31 December 2004 and I am announcing to the House today that, after a rigorous competition and on the advice of a selection board, I have appointed Mr. John Pullinger to succeed her. Mr. Pullinger is currently executive director of the Office for National Statistics.
	[Following is the letter:
	I write to confirm my decision to retire on 31 December 2004.
	By the end of this year I shall have served the House for almost thirty-seven years, the last five of them as Librarian. The Library that I shall leave will be very different in many respects from the one I joined early in 1968. The Members' Library in the Palace still looks remarkably similar to the magnificent set of rooms first occupied in 1852 and we are very fortunate that it is still in use for the purpose for which it was originally designed. Much else, has, however, changed, mainly as a result of the technology which now underlies most of our services to the House and to Members.
	Exploiting that technology for the benefit of our users has been one of the Library's biggest challenges and I think we can be very proud of the many improvements that we have made in our services. Those improvements might well not have been possible without the technology but we could not provide any of our services without our staff. I have been very lucky to have so many able and committed colleagues, most of all in the Library but also throughout both Houses. I am very grateful for their support and friendship and I shall miss them a great deal.
	It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve the House, and Parliament, for so long. I have greatly enjoyed the opportunities to work for so many Members of Parliament and to be part of a department whose services have clearly been highly valued. I have every confidence that the challenges of the future will be met as they have been in the past.]

Peter Hain: Mr Speaker, the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Miss Baines. I know that she is held in great regard and much affection by Members and staff alike. Miss Baines has served the Library with considerable distinction and dedication. She is a recognised authority on parliamentary matters and has contributed to many publications, taking a leading role in the proceedings of the Study of Parliament group.
	As Librarian, Miss Baines has fostered contacts with parliamentary libraries throughout the world. Throughout her career, Miss Baines has taken a very close interest in staffing matters, playing a major part in strengthening the trade union side.
	Miss Baines has overseen the opening of the e-library and the development of the parliamentary information management system. I understand that this will be up and running for internal purposes by the end of the year. In the second stage, it will be an important tool, contributing to the way we deliver information to the public through a much more accessible parliamentary website.
	Alongside the introduction of new technology, Miss Baines has taken forward a challenging change management programme aimed at modernising the way the Library Department delivers its services to users. This is a very significant legacy for what remains the finest parliamentary Library in the world.
	I also understand that Miss Baines will be missed in the Commons gym, where she is a sprightly early-morning regular. I believe that the whole House will join me in expressing our thanks to her and in wishing her our best wishes on her retirement.

Oliver Heald: On behalf of the Opposition, I would like to associate myself fully with your remarks, Mr. Speaker, and with those of the Leader of the House.
	The services offered by the Library have gone from strength to strength under Miss Baines' leadership. I note that last year a total of 75,000 requests for information and reference briefings were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That shows what an essential resource the Library is for Members. It is particularly so for the Opposition, who are very reliant on and grateful for the services provided.
	It is also right to pay tribute to Miss Baines for significant innovations in recent years, such as the introduction of the debate packs, which have been very useful. Miss Baines deserves our thanks for all her work and our very best wishes for the future. Although I have never actually met her in the gym—[Interruption]—I know that she has a pleasant and approachable manner. We all want to wish her a long and happy retirement.

Vincent Cable: May I add my thanks and appreciation to Miss Baines on behalf of the Liberal Democrats? Whatever party we come from, we accept that a fact in the House of Commons is often a fairly elastic concept, but that a fact from the Library is a fact which is underpinned by independent analysis, complete professionalism and integrity. An analysis from the House of Commons Library is accepted by all on both sides of the House.
	It is worth noting that, before the announcement, we were discussing the reform of government and the introduction of major changes in back offices and IT. Much of it has already happened in the Library: it has been assimilated efficiently without fuss, which reflects great credit on the Librarian. We want to thank her and welcome her successor, John Pullinger.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Priscilla Baines has been in control of the Library during a most difficult and complicated period. She has seen a complete change in the way Library services are provided. Every one of us has relied on the Library—in my case, for more than 30 years. Library staff are not only imaginative, responsible and hard-working; under Priscilla Baines' leadership, they have transformed themselves into probably the most imaginative resource that could be provided to any Parliament anywhere. We owe Priscilla Baines an enormous debt, which we shall never be able to repay. I cannot understand why we are letting someone so young retire so early.

Robert Key: For 21 years, it has been my privilege to use the wonderful resources of the Library. Only in the last six months, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Information, have I begun to understand the complexity of our great Library. I have always known that it is the Library's staff who make it what it is. Working with our Librarian, I now know why it is so special.
	Like a well ordered farm or a well stocked duck pond, the Library is always there in full working order with Members browsing contentedly through papers or computers. The reality is that, like ducks on a pond or stream, the staff are paddling furiously to keep the show on the road. There, mistress of all she surveys, is our swan—the Librarian.
	The agricultural analogy is apt, for Priscilla Baines has a first degree in agriculture and a second degree in agricultural economics, both from Oxford. When she joined the Library in 1968, it was no surprise that when the then Leader of the House, Richard Crossman, first set up the short-lived agricultural and science committees, he turned to her as the expert to take forward an exciting and challenging innovation.
	Priscilla Baines has been leading exciting and challenging projects ever since. The House owes her and her senior staff an enormous debt of gratitude for the leadership of that great project which loaned 15,000 of the House's best but least used books to the British Museum. There, they can now be seen by thousands of visitors to the wonderful Enlightenment gallery, formerly the King's library, which was established as part of the British Museum when Parliament first voted to create the first national museum in the world.
	More recently, it has been Priscilla's vision and ambition to develop an entirely new information storage and retrieval system for Members and our staff, known as PIMS—parliamentary information management services. The management of change in any great institution is exceptionally difficult. Priscilla Baines knows more about information management than anyone. Her new project comes on stream later this year. She will have had a twinkle in her eye as she christened it PIMS, for her wisdom is combined with wit; her love of opera is enhanced by her pursuit of travel; and her renowned knowledge of food has been known to be washed down with a glass of the other kind of Pimms.
	As hon. Members, we respect and admire Priscilla's achievements. She is not, perhaps, a conventional librarian, but that is precisely why she has been so successful. I know—because I have asked them—that her large staff are very fond of her. Only last week, I was told how a colleague, on her first day back from maternity leave, attended a meeting and was instantly greeted by Priscilla saying, "Oh good, you're back!" Another colleague described how they enjoyed socialising after work with a drink on the Terrace, and said, "She is really good fun."
	And so say all of us. We will be sorry to say goodbye later this year. We will miss her. Her retirement will be richly deserved. Her legacy to the House is very substantial, and we are truly grateful to her.

Rail Review

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement, following the conclusion of the rail review that I announced on 19 January.
	The railways provide an essential public service and underpin future economic growth. As the economy grows, demand for travel is increasing. Last year, the railways carried more than a billion passengers for the first time since the 1960s, so it is essential that we put in place the right organisation to run the railways, providing passengers with a reliable and efficient service.
	This week's spending review has confirmed that we will be able to make record investment in rail. With increased investment, and with Network Rail now working in the public interest, it is right that we should now put the railways on a stable, long-term footing and tackle the remaining flaws left over from privatisation.
	The proposals that I am announcing today streamline the structure and organisation of the railway. They provide a single point of accountability for performance, allow closer working between track and train, and also provide for greater local and devolved decision making. Together, these proposals will make sure that Britain's railways are run in the public interest, for the benefit of its passengers and freight customers.
	I am publishing a White Paper today setting out these proposals in detail, and copies are available in the Vote Office in the usual way. Let me set out the key changes that I propose.
	First, the Government will take charge of setting the overall strategy for the railways. It must be for Ministers, accountable to Parliament and to the electorate, to set the national strategy for the railways. The Government will set the high-level objectives, including the levels of performance. It is for the Government to decide how much money they are able to spend, and to be held to account for those decisions.
	It follows, therefore, that the Strategic Rail Authority will be wound up, and that the majority of its functions, including all its financial obligations, will be transferred to the Secretary of State. The Department for Transport will take responsibility for awarding train operating company franchises. The Department will be restructured to reflect its new responsibilities.
	As I said in January, the Government remain committed to maintaining strong, independent economic regulation for rail. That responsibility will remain with the Office of Rail Regulation, which will protect the rights of investors and railway customers and decide how much income Network Rail needs to deliver the Government's strategy. The office will ensure that the Government pay the proper price for what they buy.
	Secondly, I turn to operational responsibility. Many of today's problems stem from the fact that, at the moment, no single organisation is in charge of running the railway on a day-to-day basis. In future, overall responsibility for the network will pass to Network Rail. The Government will set out what services Network Rail is to deliver, and Network Rail will take on new responsibilities, including leading industry planning, setting timetables and directing service recovery.
	Too often, under the present system, companies have been able to pass the buck for poor performance. So, in future, Network Rail will be responsible for ensuring that the network delivers a reliable service through an agreement with the Government. It will be accountable to passengers and freight users for the network's performance. In consultation with its members, Network Rail intends to bring forward proposals to change its management and governance to reflect its new responsibilities.
	Thirdly, the new structure will bring the operation of track and train closer together, allowing far closer working between Network Rail and the train companies. That will replace the current, sometimes confrontational relationship with one based on joint working.
	The number of franchises will be reduced, and new arrangements put in place to allow for closer working between track and train operations—the importance of which the architects of privatisation failed to understand.
	Experience has already shown—and the establishment of joint control centres is an example—that joint working results in improved performance. By providing for more efficient operation of the railway, these proposals will cut costs.
	Under the new structure that I propose, there will be far greater clarity as to the responsibilities of track and train companies. Train operators will be able to concentrate on improving customer service and increasing passengers on the services that they run. When train operators' contracts are awarded, past performance will be taken into account, as well as key issues such as their proposals on costs and service improvements. The contracts will ensure that the Government can take operators off the railway if they repeatedly fail to deliver.
	Controlling costs is essential. The White Paper makes it clear that the industry must do a lot more. We are spending record amounts to improve rail, but fare payers, freight customers and taxpayers rightly expect this money to be well spent.
	My fourth key reform gives increased powers to the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and the London Mayor, as well as more local decision making in England, particularly the passenger transport executives. Many decisions affecting the amount of money spent on the railway should be taken at a local level, but current arrangements often do not allow local and regional bodies to play a full part in decisions affecting their area.
	As I said in January, local transport decisions are best taken by people who know what is needed locally. They should be able to make informed decisions as to what works best and what they are willing to pay for. So let me set out what I propose.
	In Scotland we will give the Scottish Executive responsibility for planning, specifying and managing services that operate under the existing franchise. As the level of service specified will impact on the rail infrastructure, it is right that, subject to agreement about the transfer of resources to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Executive should specify the network they require and finance it. So although the infrastructure will be owned and managed by Network Rail, with these proposals the Scottish Executive will decide what they want and how to pay for it.
	In Wales, the Government will devolve additional responsibilities to the Welsh Assembly Government, recognising the different patterns of service there. The Welsh Assembly Government will specify services and fares for local services within and bordering Wales, and they will be responsible for funding those services. There will also be scope for the Welsh Assembly Government to specify and fund additional work on infrastructure if they so wish.
	In London, we propose to extend the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services within the Greater London Authority boundary. In the short term, we will work with the Mayor to rationalise fares and ticketing across the different types of public transport in London, giving a better deal for fare payers. We will also work to identify options for giving the Mayor an increased role for services that lie for the most part within the GLA boundary.
	In future we propose to enable the Mayor to buy additional services or to propose savings to services. We want to explore all the options, including the possibility of extending this to services beyond the GLA boundary. But that must be subject to consultation with train operating companies as well as neighbouring regional and local bodies before reaching a conclusion. Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary and we need to ensure that the rights and interests of rail passengers outside London are protected.
	The White Paper also acknowledges the valuable role of community railway lines, which we aim to put on a better financial footing, following the Strategic Rail Authority's recent consultation.
	Passenger transport executives already manage transport provision in some of the main metropolitan areas of England. I propose that in future they will be able to buy additional services and to transfer funding between rail and other transport modes. So we will reform the funding arrangements and legislation for PTEs to provide more flexibility to make choices between rail and other forms of transport—bus and light rail, for example. These proposals amount to a significant devolution of powers across the country which will benefit the travelling public.
	My fifth proposal covers a critical issue—safety. The Health and Safety Executive and Commission have done a great deal to improve safety, and over the years much has been achieved. However, we believe that it is essential to provide a very clear railway focus to safety.
	The Government intend to simplify the safety regulatory structure of the railways. As part of that, we will therefore transfer responsibility for railway safety to the Office of Rail Regulation, which is independent of both Government and the industry. Safety is an essential part of railway operation. It should be in with the bricks. It needs a clear industry focus to make sure that safety is an integral part of operations. Our proposals will achieve that.
	There are a number of other measures covered in the White Paper, including a better deal for freight operators. Rail carries 45 per cent. more freight than it did in 1995, and we want to see more of that. The White Paper makes proposals to encourage the continuing growth of freight, including giving freight operators more certainty about long-term access to the main freight routes.
	The White Paper also includes proposals for a long-term strategy for the use of rolling stock to help the industry plan ahead more effectively. We need to get better value from rolling stock. The original leases were set at privatisation. The renewal of these leases in the same form would be poor value. So as passenger franchises are replaced, we will deal with these problems and drive a better deal for the public.
	The White Paper also supports proposals for reform from the Rail Passenger Council Chair as part of the review. So we will create a more independent national structure for the RPC, giving passengers a stronger voice, but maintaining a regional presence.
	In the light of the changes I propose, Richard Bowker, the chair and chief executive officer of the Strategic Rail Authority, will stand down and will leave his post in September. For the past two and a half years, he has shown outstanding leadership and a relentless determination to improve the railways. He has made a substantial contribution to the railways and leaves with my strong support and good wishes. I will appoint David Quarmby, who is currently deputy chair, to serve as chair of the SRA until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year. The board will appoint a chief executive to serve for the same time.
	The SRA staff have achieved a great deal. I intend to build on the experience and the good work of the SRA and its staff as we restructure the railways. In the meantime, it is critical that everyone in the industry focus on driving up performance and improving costs. We will work with the industry to make the changes as quickly as possible. With the Office of Rail Regulation, we will take forward the changes to the arrangements for Network Rail and the train operators as soon as we can. Other changes I propose, such as in relation to the HSE, Strategic Rail Authority and devolved decision-making, will require primary legislation, which we will introduce as soon as possible.
	At a time when the railways are carrying more people than they have done in the past 40 years, it is essential that we have a more customer-focused and passenger-friendly railway. I am streamlining the structure of the railway in order to improve standards and make rail more attractive for passengers. The proposals I am announcing today create a railway to serve passengers and freight. The Government will set the national strategy for the railways, Network Rail will be responsible for operating the network and track, and train companies will work closely together. We are putting the organisation of the railways on a stable long-term footing, backed by increased funding. We have set out a clear direction for Britain's railways, backed by the money they need. I commend this statement to the House.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. The White Paper will be judged by what it does for passengers and for rail freight. Passengers have not had much from this Labour Government so far. After seven years, trains are less reliable, fares have risen more than other prices and promised improvements in the rail network have not been delivered. The east coast main line, Crossrail, Thameslink, the East London line were all promised in the 10-year plan or in Labour's election manifesto, but those projects remain stuck in the sidings with no firm dates for completion and conspicuous by their absence from today's statement.
	Today, fewer trains run on time than when Labour came to power. Targets are set that have little chance of being met. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government's target for increasing passenger rail use has now been dropped? Four years after the Deputy Prime Minister set up the SRA, it is to be abolished. That may be a welcome admission by the Secretary of State of one of his predecessor's mistakes, but it is of little relevance to the customer.
	I welcome the decision to move responsibility for safety to the regulator. However, shifting responsibilities around Whitehall and replacing one set of bureaucrats with another will not make trains more reliable, stations more comfortable or fares more affordable. Why does the Secretary of State think that he and his civil servants can run the railways better than the train operators? Why will giving more power to the rail regulator, to Network Rail and the Department for Transport solve the problems of the railways when the all-singing, all-dancing SRA signally failed to do so?
	Why on earth does the Secretary of State think that putting Ken Livingstone in charge of trains is a good idea? How will that affect those rail users whose journeys begin and end outside the area for which the Mayor is responsible, none of whom had the chance to vote against him last month? What discussion of that extraordinary proposal has taken place with the train operators? Why cannot they, rather than Whitehall bureaucrats, decide when trains should run, and thus respond to consumer demand?
	Is not the best way to encourage extra investment in the rail network to give the train operators longer contracts, subject to strict performance criteria, so that they have the incentive and the stability to invest more money for the benefit of their customers? How will the new system of fewer franchises actually work? Over what period will train operators be able to plan and run their services without interference from politicians or bureaucrats?
	During the dying months of the SRA, how will franchises be allocated? Will subsidies, which already cost the taxpayer £14 million a day, go up or down as a result of the White Paper? How will Network Rail be made more accountable to passengers under these proposals? How will the new governance of Network Rail ensure that it operates in the interests of taxpayers and customers?
	Why will not the Secretary of State concentrate on the actual experience of the rail user? Commuters catching trains at Colchester or Manningtree experience conditions that have scarcely changed in half a century. No other business could survive by treating its customers in that way. No airport expects its passengers to stand around in the wind and rain, waiting for departures. What will the Secretary of State's structures and processes now do about those simple but important and basic challenges? What in the White Paper makes it likely that more freight will be carried on Britain's railways? Will the Secretary of State restore the grants to encourage that, which he withdrew last year?
	What the Secretary of State has announced today is another example of fat Government. Instead of slimming down the bureaucracy, as his advance spin promised, bureaucrats will have a bigger role. Instead of the railways being set free, commuter services in the south-east will be burdened with an extra layer of fat and bureaucracy. These proposals give Ministers and bureaucrats a bigger role in running the railways, when what was needed was a smaller one. The winners from this review are the Department of Transport, Ken Livingstone and Network Rail, not the long-suffering railway passengers, who will search the statement in vain for specific proposals to address the reliability, cost and capacity issues that are at the top of their concerns.

Alistair Darling: I appreciate that the Opposition are at a disadvantage when a White Paper is published. It probably was not possible for the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to read it cover to cover, but that is a pity, because about 75 per cent. of the questions he asked would have been answered there. However, I shall attempt to deal with some of them.
	It is important that people recognise the distinction between what is properly the province of Government—deciding how much money will be spent and setting the high-level objectives for railways—and what is properly the province of train operating companies, which is whether the 7.42 from Manningtree will run or not. The White Paper proposes the proper distinction. The Government, not the SRA, will deal with the high-level strategy and spending.
	I understand why the hon. Gentleman is a little nervous of addressing spending, because the Opposition's policy is to spend £1.8 billion less on transport than we now propose. It is not surprising that he does not want to go into that issue. He must recognise, however, that Government will be responsible for high-level strategy, and day-to-day operations will pass to Network Rail. If he looks at the document, he will see that the structure will be massively streamlined, compared with the one that existed in the past.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about London. We are not proposing to give the Mayor power over trains outside the GLA. We are saying that for those railway lines within London, it makes some sense that the Mayor should have some say over them, because they are complementary to tube and bus services.

Tim Yeo: What a muddle.

Alistair Darling: The North London line is wholly within the GLA and is used by people because there is no tube line or bus service. Surely it makes sense that the Mayor should have some say over the trains that run on that line. If the Mayor decided, for example, that he wanted more stopping trains within the GLA boundary, but the trains in question originated from outside the area, the issue would need to be discussed with people who live outside the boundary. We are not talking about transferring all power over those trains to the Mayor. Why does not the hon. Gentleman look at what is actually being proposed?
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned longer franchises. One of the problems with privatisation was that it was thought at the time that if franchises were awarded for a long period, such as 25 years, there would be more investment. What happened was that the costings in those long-term franchises proved to be hopelessly unrealistic. That is one of the reasons why costs got so out of control—the botched privatisation for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible.
	There will be fewer franchises. In relation to the changes in governance involving Network Rail, it will bring forward proposals in the next few days. We are providing greater streamlining of the organisation of the railways. It will be infinitely better than the dog's breakfast that the Tory party left this country.

John Thurso: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in sending me both a copy of his statement and a letter in response to the letter I wrote him as a submission to the rail review. I appreciate that he could not reply sooner and I am grateful for his courtesy in replying at the earliest opportunity.
	I welcome much that is in the statement. The Secretary of State will know from our recent transport debate and the correspondence to which I have referred that he and I have reached many of the same conclusions. That is largely because common sense and logical analysis of the problems lead to some pretty obvious conclusions.
	The travelling public are fed up with politicians bickering over blame. They simply want a safe, reliable, affordable railway on which they can count and, subject to the detail of the White Paper, the conclusions of the review should lay the framework for achieving their desire.
	The railways have been dogged by over-complex and competing bureaucracies—I would even go so far as to say adversarial bureaucracies—and I have long argued that they need to be simplified. The review clearly accepts that. I welcome the proposed arrangements for strategic leadership by the Government and for operating responsibilities to lie clearly with Network Rail.
	I welcome in particular the devolution to the Scottish Parliament of the SRA's responsibility for Scotland, as well as the proposals for Wales, London and the passenger transport executives in England. However, will the Secretary of State again confirm that the appropriate financial resources will also be transferred with those responsibilities?
	It is right that Network Rail should have clear responsibility for delivery, which obviously requires strong governance. When will the Secretary of State be able to tell the House his thoughts about that? Does he anticipate restructuring the stakeholder board? At 120, it must be unwieldy to say the least—if not unworkable.
	The suggestions for franchisees seem sound, but does the Secretary of State agree that three of the small franchises—namely, c2c, Chiltern Railways and Merseyrail—are among the best performers and that they will not easily fit into a larger franchise? On this occasion, will he accept that small is actually beautiful?
	Strong and independent regulation is essential for the railways. I have argued that there should be one regulator for economic, safety and environmental matters, which is also broadly accepted by the review. Does the Secretary of State see the Civil Aviation Authority as a role model that could be adapted for use with the Office of the Rail Regulator? Will that office review the safety regulations so that there is an appropriate balance between the need for safety and economic drivers? I am pleased that the Government have recognised the basic inefficiency of the rolling stock companies and I look forward to studying the Secretary of State's proposals in detail.
	Finally, I note that legislation will be required. In the light of the Secretary of State's acceptance of so many of the points that I have put to him, my colleagues in the House and in another place look forward to working constructively with him to help put the necessary legislation in place and, more important, to help deliver a 21st-century rail network for the long-suffering passengers of Britain.

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman can co-operate with his noble Friends in another place that will be very welcome—it does not always happen. I agree with much of what he said. To his credit, the Liberal Democrats actually have a transport policy, which is more than can be said for the official Opposition.
	In response to the hon. Gentleman's questions, Network Rail will be proposing changes in its governance over the next few days. Obviously, that is a matter for the company.
	On budgets and the transfer of resources, I want to move to a situation where PTEs actually know how much they are spending on the railways. There is a revealing table in the White Paper, which shows exactly some of the costs for heavy rail in the regions. PTEs will be able to make sensible choices as to whether to invest in heavy rail, light rail, buses and so on.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about franchises and mentioned three that work well. I want to reduce the number of franchises because it is important that they are more closely aligned with the track organisation. I attach particular importance to that, but the exact shape and size is something that we shall need to look at.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on safety. There may be parallels with the CAA, if only to show that safety and economic regulation can sit in one regulator. What is important is to achieve the railway focus to which I referred.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and look forward to seeing how the Liberals maintain that steady course over the next year or so.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that every traveller who is fed up with the constant muddle in which the rail industry has had to exist for the past 10 years will welcome his clarity? Will he ensure that the system whereby one company blames another is not continued in the future and that we have clear lines of responsibility, so that we—the Government and the taxpayers, who are paying for the system with greater sums than ever before—are not only given value for money but can see who wastes the cash and makes impossible the service to which every passenger is entitled?

Alistair Darling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We need clarity as to who is responsible for what. The Government accept responsibility for funding and the electorate are entitled to hold them to account on that. If a new Government came along who wanted to slash spending on transport, they would have to be held to account for that. We need similar clarity on operations, so that we can see who is responsible for trains running on time and, critically, as my hon. Friend pointed out, for spending money. As ever, I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says.

John Horam: Is the Secretary of State aware that about 50 per cent. of all passenger rail journeys are made by Londoners, yet last year London received only £73 million in revenue subsidy while the rest of the country got £1.9 billion? Now that the right hon. Gentleman has taken new powers to himself, which I welcome, will he address that matter urgently?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is right: the London commuter network is the most heavily used part of the system. Obviously, subsidy is directed to the network as a whole, but as we move towards more transparent budgets and can see where the money is being spent, sensible decisions can be taken. However, before the hon. Gentleman calls for more subsidy, he might want to have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) who is advocating a £1.8 billion cut in transport spending.

Paul Truswell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that rail congestion in west Yorkshire is greater than in most parts of the country, including the south-east. That is certainly true of the three lines that serve my constituency—Wharfedale, Harrogate and Leeds to Bradford. Can he assure me and my constituents who use those services that the new structures will be able to identify and deliver the renewal of rolling stock and the increase in capacity that is desperately needed to meet not only existing demand but the demand we hope to generate with the opening of new stations?

Alistair Darling: Yes, I can. Part of my proposals for west Yorkshire would give the passenger transport authority greater power to decide what is required. Obviously, the Government can take an overall strategic view as to the size and shape of the railways nationally, but decisions about what happens locally and how transport is provided—whether by heavy rail or other modes—are best taken locally. We want to move towards a situation where there is greater transparency about what happens so that there can be far better decision making than there is at the moment.

George Young: Members on both sides of the House will welcome the increased investment in the railways since privatisation, but the Secretary of State knows that many worthwhile projects are no longer in the plan. Will he have another look at the length of franchises? With a two-year rolling franchise, there is little incentive for a train operator to invest in improved stations or car parks. Will he consider increasing the franchise lengths so that such incentives can be restored?
	As the SRA no longer stands behind Network Rail, can the Secretary of State confirm that Network Rail's borrowing will appear on the Government's balance sheet? So far it has not done so. Finally, will he not lose sight of the role of rail in a sustainable and coherent transport strategy? Rail fares are rising ahead of inflation—way ahead of motoring costs—and he has abandoned the growth targets for use of the railway, so in the statement that he has just made is he not running the risk of not capturing the full potential of rail?

Alistair Darling: I certainly am not. As I said in my statement, it is worth bearing in mind that last year Britain's railways carried more passengers than at any time since the early 1960s. That is a measure of their success. Despite all the difficulties railways are doing well. Although punctuality is not nearly as good as it should be, it is improving.

Christopher Chope: That is the success of privatisation.

Alistair Darling: No, it is not. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that it has something to do with the phenomenal growth in our economy over the past seven years, as well as the not insubstantial sums of public money that are going into the railways. However, because someone will no doubt ask about it at some stage, I will give him this: several train operating companies have brought some flair into getting passengers to use them. I have always said that.
	On the last point raised by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), he need have no fear. I gently point to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that he and his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) may well ask why we have not built this line, that line or the next one, and we may say, "Yes, we will do as much as we can", but if they cut £1.8 billion from transport spending, they will not be able to build any of those lines.
	In relation to the franchise length, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need to award franchises that are of sufficient length to give companies an incentive. As I have said, we need to take into account not just costs and performance, but how a company behaves in the first part of its franchise. However, I am wary of moving to something like a 25-year franchise—indeed, I would not agree to that—which was suggested about 10 years ago. For example, the figures included in the Virgin franchises in 1995–96 have proved wildly optimistic. That does no one any good at all.
	In relation to the financial obligations, I said in the statement and the White Paper says that they will transfer to the office of the Secretary of State.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend referred in his statement to the valuable role of community railways. I wonder whether he could expand on that, especially with regard to branch lines in rural areas, such as the west Cumbrian line and the Oxenholme to Windermere line. How will the White Paper affect them? What more local control will we have over the railways?

Alistair Darling: The White Paper deals with local community railways and refers to the recent SRA consultation. The idea is that certain railway lines, which may not be viable under the present system, could be operated much better. It does not include specific suggestions, but sets out a framework for decision making in the future. I have been impressed by the fact that a number of working community railway lines would almost certainly have been shut if they had not been transferred to the control of local people. That is something that I want to encourage.

Hugh Robertson: The Secretary of State will be aware of the real concern felt in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) about the SRA's proposed cuts to the Maidstone to Ashford line. As a result of the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, will he confirm whether the Government's consultation with the Integrated Kent Franchise will still report as planned in the autumn?

Alistair Darling: I am well aware of the concerns in Kent about the current consultation. It is very clear that, whatever is proposed, if there is a difficulty in one part of the country or another, that is something for the SRA to resolve. I appreciate that it will be very difficult to resolve all the various conflicts, but, obviously, we must have a go. For the avoidance of doubt, the SRA will continue to be responsible for those matters until it is closed, probably in the second half of next year.

Graham Stringer: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an excellent response to the analysis in the Select Committee report, "The Future of the Railway". I particularly appreciate the devolution of both power and cash to passenger transport authorities, so that they can determine what goes on in their areas. A huge quantity of money is spent on heavy rail over which local people have no control or say, but will he assure me that waiting for the legislation to enable that transfer will not delay implementing the extension of the tram system in Greater Manchester?

Alistair Darling: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He has long held the view that there ought to be greater openness, so that PTEs can take informed decisions about whether to provide heavy rail, light rail or bus services. There are a number of light rail schemes, but they are not dealt with specifically in the White Paper, which is about the proposed structure. I have always made the point that, in relation to any rail scheme—heavy or light—or indeed any other transport scheme, we must be satisfied that it stacks up and provides value for money.
	One of our problems with light rail schemes, as my hon. Friend well knows, is that the costs have doubled in the past two or three years and what is proposed is half as much as originally planned. The Government cannot sign up to things that do not represent value for money. Some of the changes that I have announced today, whereby we are increasingly able to identify regional transport budgets, will ensure that PTEs and local authorities will also be able to make more informed judgments about where they are prepared to spend their money. That is obviously of interest to the Government.

Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the reduction in franchise numbers. I also warmly welcome the closer working relationship between operators and those who control the track. However, may I pick up the point, which was made strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), that the Secretary of State and the Government should consider the length of franchises? Unless the franchises are of a certain length, those companies will not be able to make the necessary investment in car parking facilities at stations. The need for safe, reliable parking at Macclesfield station is critical to getting people off the roads and into trains for journeys to Manchester or south to Birmingham and Stoke. Such investment is very important to my constituency.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Many train operating companies have not just put money into their trains and on-train services, but built car parks, and some run minibus and bus services to round up customers and take them to the stations every morning. That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage. I want to ensure that franchises are sufficiently long to encourage companies to stick in there and make that investment.
	Past performance ought to be taken into account because we are entitled to ask, "Okay, what did you do for the first part of the franchise? What might you do in the second part?" Obviously, cost and performance are critically important. As I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), my reservation is that, if the franchise is too long, the numbers bid sometimes become unrealistic, but I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and other hon. Members for the general welcome that they have given to our proposals. Indeed, the only sour note so far appears to have come from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo).

Iain Luke: I welcome transferring the SRA's responsibilities to the Secretary of State, but I am concerned, as the representative of a north-eastern Scottish constituency, that the funding given to the Scottish Executive to upgrade the line north of Edinburgh is sufficient. Colleagues and I have recently had discussions with the SRA, which has decoupled the prioritisation of investment north of Edinburgh, and we have had discussions with the Minister for Transport in the Scottish Executive, and they have told us that they have no money. I hope that any devolution of responsibility will involve sufficient money to ensure that the much-needed investment in north-east Scotland's railway lines can go ahead soon.

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the problems that my hon. Friend sets out in relation to the lines in the north-east of Scotland. Upgrading the line between the central belt and Aberdeen was an issue when I lived in Aberdeen in the 1970s—it is not new. In relation to what I propose in respect of Scotland, it is right, especially as most services in Scotland are discrete to Scotland, that the Scottish Executive ought to have a greater say, and they can decide to spend more or less. That is a decision that they should properly take.
	In relation to rail finances generally, however, the House should understand that the cost of running the railway, especially now that we are clear about the state of the network, has risen very dramatically in the past five years or so. Although there will be improvements—a lot of money is going into the railways—obviously, choices must be made about what can be done and when, so people must be realistic about that.

Pete Wishart: I, too, welcome the statement, especially the part that relates to Scotland. We in the Scottish National party and our colleagues have argued long and hard that there has been an overwhelming case for the transfer of rail powers to the Scottish Parliament and, indeed, to the Welsh Assembly. I am glad that the Secretary of State now sees the clarity of that case. Will he say a little more about how the resources will follow the transfer of powers? I am still unclear about how Scottish objectives will be pursued by the Scottish Executive. In his guise as the Secretary of State for Scotland, does he agree that, when it makes overwhelming sense to devolve such powers, as it does on the railways, he will continue to consider such cases in the future?

Alistair Darling: I am proposing a substantial change in the arrangements for the railways. Of course, the Scottish Executive got a very good settlement, consequential on the announcements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made on Monday. It is obviously for the Scottish Executive to decide how to deploy those resources, and it is encouraging that they are now spending more than £1 billion on transport for the first time ever, I think. That is good news. The hon. Gentleman might want to reflect on the fact that the reason why Scotland's expenditure is going up is that the Chancellor was able to make those resources available because of the strength of the UK economy. Of course, that would all be at risk with separation.

Liz Blackman: My right hon. Friend will know that I have raised the absence of a station at Ilkeston with him before. Indeed, it is the only town of its size in the east midlands that does not have a station. The Government are currently funding a link road to join the town with the motorway, so a station would make an ideal transport hub. In the light of his statement, what comfort can he give to my constituents that a station will arrive sooner rather than later?

Alistair Darling: Tempted though I am, I would probably be better not to make any specific promises. The White Paper deals with the structure and organisation necessary to run the railways rather than specifics. We will need to consider whether a station can be established in Ilkeston. We are spending a lot of money on the railways, but people must understand that the cost of running the railway and the regulatory review that took place at the end of last year have put a substantial pressure on our budget as a whole. Yes, we want improvements to transport across the piece, but we need to ensure that we bear down on costs because every time that we do that, additional money might be available to do other things. I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind, but the White Paper does not deal with matters in such specific deal.

David Tredinnick: The Secretary of State tries to claim credit for the increase in passenger numbers over the past 40 years, but in reality, the dramatic increase was caused by the privatisation of the railways by the Conservative party. All the issues with which he is dealing relate to the success of privatisation. That needs to be stated because it is not said often enough.
	The right hon. Gentleman might want to address the reality of the discontinuation of the Nottingham-Hinckley-Coventry line that goes through my constituency. He is now taking more powers for himself, so if I write to him, will he undertake to examine Railfuture's proposal to reinstate an existing dive-under tunnel at Nuneaton?

Alistair Darling: Again, we are hearing a plea for more money to be spent on the railways. I return to this point: the Conservative party is committed to cutting £1.8   billion from the transport budget, so it is in no position to call for more money for a dive-in tunnel, a new station or anything because it would not make money available. As for what I said about additional passengers, I have never tried to claim credit for the transport system over the past 40 years—I was not responsible 40 years ago. What is happening now with our growing economy enabling more people to travel by our trains and additional public money for the railways is to the credit of the Government, but it is the shame of the official Opposition that they want to cut the amount spent.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and especially the extension of the Mayor's responsibilities for rail services in the Greater London area because of the increased integration that I believe that will deliver. Is he aware that my constituents have the fourth highest dependency on public transport services in the country and that we need the East London line to be extended? That is currently an SRA project that is expecting SRA funding, so can he give us any assurance that the long overdue project will go ahead?

Alistair Darling: As I said, the White Paper deals with the structure and organisation of the railways. As my hon. Friend knows, the SRA and the Department have been examining several projects, including the East London line and other London projects. I will be able to say something about those things, but I must be careful to remind hon. Members again that there are huge cost pressures on us. I have always made it clear that London's rail infrastructure needs to be extended, but we must consider how that is paid for and when it happens. Today's announcement was purely about the structure of the railways.

Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State explain how the Evening Standard was able to say with such confidence:
	"Ken Livingstone is set to be handed control of the entire London rail network"?
	It mysteriously seemed to know the content of the statement before it was given. In that context, will he expand a little further on the mysterious part of his statement saying,
	"Many London commuter services run well outside the GLA boundary"?
	Can he name any that do not?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the London Evening Standard, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman directs his comments to the editor rather than to me. I do not know why the story was written. The story in the first edition of the Standard is not right, as I said earlier. The right hon. Gentleman should actually read the White Paper, although I appreciate that that would require rather more effort than he sometimes applies to such matters, because he would see that the proposals are rather different from what appears in the Evening Standard. I am told, although I cannot promise the House of this, that the second edition is rather different.

Dave Watts: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the element about giving more powers to passenger transport authorities. If he is worried about whether the strategy will work, I refer him to the Merseyrail system. It was the worst train system in Britain, but since it transferred to the PTA, it has become the second best and most reliable service. Will he see whether he can support that scheme even more?

Alistair Darling: The White Paper refers specifically to Mersey Electrics and records what it has done. I know that its reliability is pretty good, but it is worth remembering that it has a discrete network, so it is fortunate that no other trains, apart from the odd freight train, go on to the lines. The arrangements for Merseytravel are set out, and my hon. Friend will have every reason to be happy with what is proposed.

Vincent Cable: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), how will the new governance regime involving the London Mayor impinge on the Crossrail project? Does he intend to make a full statement on that subject before the end of the parliamentary Session?

Alistair Darling: I hope to be able to say something about Crossrail in the not too distant future.

Michael Clapham: I welcome most of my right hon. Friend's statement, but I am a little worried by his proposals on safety. Will he say a little more about why he has decided to move responsibility for safety from the independent health and safety inspectorate to the Office of Rail Regulation, and confirm that that is not being done because of cost pressures?

Alistair Darling: Absolutely not; safety is absolutely paramount. We thought about the transfer long and hard, and I tell my hon. Friend and the House that the ORR is as independent as the Health and Safety Executive. There is no question of safety being anything but independent from both the Government and the industry—that will remain.
	We are undertaking the transfer because given everything that happened in the past, and especially due to European directives on safety, it is much better to have an organisation that can focus on railway safety. We can thus simplify the structure and apply ourselves to the risks faced by the industry. For example, although attention is obviously given to passenger fatalities due to people falling off trains, the vast majority of people killed on the railways are trespassing or suicides. The industry has not examined that risk sufficiently, so we need an organisation with a clear focus. I have, of course, discussed the matter with Bill Callaghan, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. Although his view was different to mine, he told me that he and the rail regulator will work closely to ensure that the transfer works. I will do nothing to prejudice that because I want the transfer to take place properly so that it will help people. I think, on balance, that my judgment is right.

Angela Watkinson: I heard with great alarm that the Mayor for London might be allowed to become involved in commuter services starting outside London and running into London. Two such lines run through my constituency: the Southend-Fenchurch Street line run by c2c; and the Southend-Liverpool Street line, which is run by the renamed Great Eastern—it is now inexplicably called "one", which means that every carriage looks like a first-class carriage. Will the Minister explain what sort of powers the Mayor might be given?

Alistair Darling: I understand that people who read the first edition of the Standard might have got a wholly erroneous impression. I propose that there is room to give the Mayor a greater scope to specify what is needed for services that run wholly in the Greater London authority—I referred to the North London line, for example.

Oliver Heald: It is called the Northern line.

Alistair Darling: If the hon. Gentleman could contain himself for once, he might actually learn something. I appreciate that he has nothing worthwhile to say, so perhaps he should not say anything.
	On commuter services that run outside London, the Mayor could say that he would like to pay for more services to stop within the London boundary. Conversely, people coming from, say, Southend might want a fast service into London with few stops. Reconciling those two interests will require plenty of discussion. I have made it clear, both in the White Paper and my statement, that the rights and expectations of people living outside London must be taken into account. There is no question of the Mayor being given control of those services outside his area. If there is an argument for providing more stopping trains and to provide more services, the question is whether that   could be accommodated. I would have thought that that required a common-sense approach, not the scaremongering in which the hon. Lady's colleagues are indulging.

Lawrie Quinn: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on his excellent statement, but on the negotiations that he undertook with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on transport spending? May I also be the first Back-Bench Member to thank, as the Secretary of State did, the staff of the Strategic Rail Authority for their work in preparing the way forward for Britain's railways? In particular, I draw attention to the leadership of Richard Bowker, especially on community rail partnerships and the blueprint outlined.
	On freight, does my right hon. Friend propose to undertake discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to improve the transport planning arrangements to allow depots to provide access for more goods to go on to the rail network?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal for very short questions and precise answers. I am letting the statement run beyond the original time estimated so that all hon. Members get called.

Alistair Darling: In relation to my hon. Friend's three points, I am always grateful to the Chancellor. That does not, however, get us away from the fact that our budgets are still under pressure. I want freight to be encouraged. Indeed, I am greatly encouraged by the freight companies that have made it clear that they want to go out and win new business. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about Richard Bowker.

Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State understand that there will be considerable concern in Worcestershire about his proposal to extend the powers of the passenger transport executives? We have such poor commuter services because Birmingham and the conurbation specify their services in preference to Worcestershire commuters. Given that he is also talking of giving the Welsh Assembly powers for services bordering Wales, many of which come to Worcestershire, we could be hit by a double whammy. In addition, I invite the Secretary of State to answer the question he did not answer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No, I do not think that we will have an extra question.

Alistair Darling: My proposals on devolution are primarily directed at those services that operate within the areas covered by PTEs and so on. In all parts of the network, there are obviously choices to be made and decisions to be taken between services that run within a local area and those that run further afield. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would be quiet for one minute, I might be able to answer his question.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned about the tension between people who live well away from PTE areas who rely on services that go into those areas. That is obviously something that we need to reconcile, a point that I made earlier.

Hugh Bayley: My right hon. Friend's decision to pin down the bureaucracy and to provide a clear strategic framework for the railways, and his ability to win extra money from the Treasury to deliver the strategy, will be widely welcomed in a railway town like York. Now that the parameters have been set, when will the SRA publish the route utilisation strategy for the east coast main line and when will the refranchising formally start?

Alistair Darling: I hope that the answer to both those questions is "shortly". It is most important that the change does not hold up developments that need to be put in place to ensure that the railways operate over the next few years. I hope that we can do those two things as soon as possible.

John McDonnell: May I give credit where credit is due? Today's announcement shows that the Secretary of State is slowly but surely reinventing a much improved British Rail. Unfortunately, he has not gone far enough in bringing the train operating companies back into public ownership. However, will he at least end the private sector preference, so that if the public sector is operating successfully—as it is with south-east trains—it is not forced into the private sector?

Alistair Darling: Not for the first time I must disappoint my hon. Friend. We are not re-creating British Rail and I think that the public-private partnership works. The performance of south-east trains is improving, but so is the performance of a number of other train operators operating around London. I am afraid that we will have to disagree—but nothing new there.

Gordon Prentice: Will the new arrangements make it easier for disused railway lines to be reopened, or is the shape of the network to be entirely with Network Rail?

Alistair Darling: The Government have to decide how much they spend and the general overall strategy for the railways. Network Rail, through its industry planning process, will have to decide whether markets mean that new lines might be profitable or old lines might change. That happens with all types of transport because it is necessary to take account of where people are.
	If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he is referring to community railway lines. They have been successful in keeping lines open that might otherwise have closed. That is acknowledged in the White Paper and we want to build on it.

Business of the House

Peter Hain: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
	Monday 19 July—Remaining stages of the Health Protection Agency Bill [Lords]. Followed by motion to approve the Draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2004, followed by remaining stages of the Public Audit (Wales) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 20 July—A debate on Iraq on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill, followed by if necessary further consideration of Lords amendments. It may also assist the House if I confirm that there will be a statement about the findings of the balance of funding review report.
	Wednesday 21 July—A motion to approve three regional assembly and local government referendums orders, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 22 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion on the summer recess Adjournment.
	The provisional business for the week following the summer recess will include:
	Tuesday 7 September—Second Reading of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords].
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for September will be:
	Thursday 9 September—A debate on the report from the Science and Technology Committee on the EU's new chemical strategy.
	Thursday 16 September—A debate on the report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on postal voting.

Oliver Heald: I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
	Although we are pleased that it is possible to have the capping of local authorities debated on the Floor of the House next Monday, as is normal practice, it is wrong that only an hour and a half is to be allowed when five councils and one fire authority are involved. May we have more time for that debate?
	Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why so many last-minute amendments on new matters were tabled by the Minister when the Energy Bill was discussed on Report this week, which meant that other hon. Members were unable to have their amendments discussed before the guillotine fell? When will the Leader of the House stop that sort of abuse?
	Now that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill has completed all its stages, will the right hon. Gentleman implement the Westminster boundary review for Scotland by laying the order before we rise?
	Finally, I ask for a debate on the Butler report. It was made to Parliament and should be debated here, just like the Hutton report and the Penrose report. The Prime Minister has a poor record of making speeches here, but we do need a detailed speech from him in response to the report. He needs to address the flaws in intelligence and the way in which he conducts Cabinet business.
	Lord Butler says that Downing street stretched intelligence "to the outer limits". He says that the 45-minute claim should not have been in the dossier at all. Throughout the dossier, serious misgivings about the intelligence were taken out. Who took them out? How could the Prime Minister then tell the country that the intelligence was "beyond doubt"? How could he tell thisHouse that it was "extensive, detailed and authoritative" when we know that it was "little", "sporadic" and "patchy"?
	The people of this country are entitled to believe their Prime Minister as he leads us into war. Can that ever be the case again—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is calling for a debate. We should not be holding it now.

Oliver Heald: We need a debate in Government time, led by the Prime Minister, before the House rises.

Peter Hain: Well, that was a bit of windy rhetoric, was it not, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Before I respond to it, I shall deal with the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised. I do not accept that an hour and a half on council capping is insufficient. The matter has been debated regularly in the House and this will be an appropriate way in which to deal with it. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about Government amendments to the Energy Bill. Obviously, I share with him the desire to minimise the tabling of Government amendments to any Bill, especially at a late stage, including on Report. I also regret that other amendments were not discussed. On the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, no, there will not be an order brought before the summer recess. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until an appropriate time for that.
	I shall now deal with the substance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. There will be a debate on Iraq on Tuesday, as I have already announced, in which there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss the Butler report. Indeed, I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary will make reference to it in his opening speech. He will obviously take interventions on that matter, and any Members who catch the eye of the Chair will be able to make their points.
	I refute categorically the suggestion that the House has not had an opportunity to discuss Iraq. The Prime Minister has made a whole series of statements on Iraq and other matters. He also opened the debate on the Hutton report, at the request of the Opposition, among others. He has held himself accountable to the House more than any other Prime Minister, to the extent that, for the very first time, we had a debate and a vote authorising the decision to go to war, which was carried by a clear majority. So the idea that Parliament has somehow been bypassed in this process is absolute nonsense, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
	The hon. Gentleman's reference to the Butler report represents the typically opportunistic stance of the Conservatives, who have consistently supported the action in Iraq. I could add to the quotations from the Leader of the Opposition on that matter which were repeated by the Prime Minister yesterday, but I shall spare the hon. Gentleman's pain. Frankly, if there is an issue of credibility involved, it is the shifty opportunism of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think that the voters in the by-elections today and in future will pronounce their verdict on that shifty opportunism. If there is a credibility problem, then it is the Leader of the Opposition who has a credibility problem on Iraq, the Butler report and just about everything else.

Vincent Cable: I welcome the proposed statement on the balance of funding review. I also welcome the Adjournment debate on Iraq next week. It was clear from the statement and the comments made yesterday that there was palpable frustration in the House that some Members could not express their views at that time, and I hope that next week's debate will provide an opportunity for the large number of Members—whether they were for or against the war, and whether they are pleased or displeased with the outcome—to affirm their anger that they were led into war on false assumptions. I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for that opinion to be expressed.
	Will the Leader of the House tell us who will summate in that debate? It is important that the Government should have an opportunity to explain, in response to Butler's finding that "serious errors" were made, who individually carries responsibility, when it has been stated that there was collective blame. Will the Foreign Secretary be the person to convey a definitive answer to that question?
	Butler raises a wider question, on which the Leader of the House is perhaps the best person to report back to us. If there was a failure of what has been called an informal system of governance, in terms of the way in which the Cabinet functioned and made decisions, will we have a report presented to us, either through a statement or a debate, on how Cabinet government and its reporting procedures are to be improved?
	Switching to another subject, a large number of Members on both sides of the House are concerned that schools are being built and transport systems improved by private finance initiative contractors—particularly Jarvis, which is on the brink of bankruptcy. Indeed, we might come back to Parliament in the autumn faced with serious disruption to building programmes if that company does go bankrupt. Is the Leader of the House in a position to say whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills or another Minister will be able to make a statement on that before the House breaks up?
	Earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Health referred to the serious problems arising from MRSA in hospitals and has now acknowledged that this is a major problem in the health service. Can we have a full statement and debate on this, as there is widespread frustration in the House that, although this issue has been raised by me and many other Members over the last six or seven years, it has taken all this time for it to become a top priority issue for the Secretary of State and for action to be taken? Can we have a fuller explanation of what action is being taken on this matter?

Peter Hain: On Iraq and the Butler report, there has been an honest difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and the Government on this matter. I accept that the hon. Gentleman and his party oppose the action that the Government took; they did so honestly, just as we acted honestly, and there should be a mutual recognition of the honesty of each other's position. That is in stark contrast to the opportunism of the Conservatives, who were actually urging us to go to war before the United Nations passed resolution 1441. In fact, they were inciting us to go to war without the authority of the United Nations, before that process broke down. At least the Liberal Democrats have maintained a consistent position on the issue, although that is about all I can say for it. It has yet to be decided who will reply to the debate on Iraq, but I shall obviously take into account the points that the hon. Gentleman raised in that regard.
	On the Cabinet, the Butler report made it perfectly clear that the decision making and the style of the Cabinet was no less effective, to quote the Butler report, compared with other Governments. There were 24 Cabinet discussions on Iraq, many of which I attended after my promotion to the Cabinet. There were 25 key meetings of Ministers and officials, and that is apart from the war Cabinet itself. So there was full consultation, every Cabinet Minister had the opportunity to speak, and at the end of that process we came to Parliament and sought the approval of Parliament in the first ever vote on whether to go to war. Any questioning of the decision making is therefore simply unacceptable.
	I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats have actually read the Butler report. Perhaps I should read one of its conclusions, which states that
	"we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:
	a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I ought to say to the Leader of the House what I said to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We cannot go into the details of that debate at this time.

Peter Hain: I am happy not to go into the details, in that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	On MRSA, we were the first to introduce a mandatory system for collecting reports of bloodstream infections. It was introduced in 2001, and it was much needed, given what went on before, including under the previous Conservative Government. Improved cleanliness is obviously an important part of tackling this problem, but it will not be tackled by that alone. I remind the House that it was the previous Conservative Government who privatised hospital cleaning and contracted it out so that low costs were the order of the day, rather than high quality. We have sought to reverse that. On PFI contracts, I will certainly draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Gordon Prentice: Has my friend seen early-day motion 1512 on Cabinet decision making, which stands in my name?
	[That this House notes with unease Lord Butler's observations on page 147 of his report concerning the nature of Cabinet discussions on Iraq; is dismayed that while a small number of key Ministers met frequently, no papers were circulated to the full Cabinet or to a Cabinet committee despite the fact that "excellent quality papers" were written by officials and that information given to Cabinet ministers outside the inner circle and in the Cabinet forum was solely by way of oral briefings by the Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary; further notes that Lord Butler's conclusion that this practice "reduced Cabinet Ministers' ability to prepare properly for such discussions" and this reduced "the scope for informed collective political judgement"; deplores the way in which vital decisions on war and peace were taken on the full authority of the Cabinet but without the active participation and engagement of all its members; and calls on the Head of the Home Civil Service and the Prime Minister to give an undertaking to Parliament that the concerns expressed by Lord Butler in the machinery of Government will be fully addressed.]
	It is not just the Liberal Democrats who are exercised about this matter: 147 Labour Members voted against the war. PowerPoint presentations to Cabinet Ministers can be no substitute for considered background papers circulated in advance so that Cabinet Ministers can make an informed judgment on important decisions such as going to war.

Peter Hain: It is always nice to know that we have the support of my hon. Friend on these matters. I want to say to him frankly and bluntly that I was in the Cabinet during many of those discussions. They took a great deal of time over many meetings—indeed, there were 24 Cabinet discussions on the matter, as I said earlier. There was a great deal of probing of all the issues, and the idea that the Cabinet was some kind of sop in regard to the decision that was made is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend ought to withdraw that suggestion.

Eric Forth: May we please debate who should set up committees of inquiry? Is it not now obvious that a committee established by the Prime Minister—the chairman was appointed by the Prime Minister, the terms of reference were written by the Prime Minister and the members all got privy councillorships before it started—is not a satisfactory way in which to achieve a truthful outcome? I suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be better if all future committees of inquiry were appointed solely and entirely by the House of Lords.

Peter Hain: The right hon. Gentleman's question is eccentric and predictable. Is he impugning the integrity and credibility of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), who served on the Butler inquiry? We have had the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry, the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry, an independent inquiry headed by a judge—the Hutton report—and now the Butler inquiry, which was headed by a former Cabinet Secretary. Those four inquiries produced 1,056 pages of material and 500,000 words of analysis. None of the charges made by any critics of the Prime Minister or the Government has been sustained, and the critics should shut up, put up and accept the result of those four inquiries.

Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House inform hon. Members why the business for September, which he announced today, does not include the topic of hunting with dogs? As I understand it, unless the topic is brought back in the House today, it will not be debated in the September session because one parliamentary month must pass before a Bill can be debated under the Parliament Acts.

Peter Hain: I think that my hon. Friend will find that he is not right on that point. I have announced today all the business that I can confirm at this stage. A considerable period of the Session remains, and I do not necessarily expect to make an announcement before the House rises for the recess. However, hon. Members know that I have repeatedly made strong commitments in this House, and those commitments to resolve the issue will be honoured.

Alistair Burt: Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the powers of coroners' courts? An inquest begins in Hatfield today into the death of the son of one of my constituents, who was killed when he was struck by a lorry on the A1. Because the company that owns the lorry and the lorry driver are domiciled abroad, however, the coroner cannot bring the lorry driver to the coroner's court to answer questions. If the Leader of the House agrees that that is an anomaly, I wonder whether he can find time for us to debate and discuss the matter.

Peter Hain: The issue is obviously serious, and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will want to pay close attention to that point and will hope to support the hon. Gentleman in taking the matter forward.

David Chaytor: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1497, which describes the astonishing decision by the Conservative council in Calderdale to appoint a British National party member to its racial equality and community cohesion working party?
	[That this House condemns the decision by Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to appoint a BNP councillor to the Racial Equality and Community Cohesion Working Party; congratulates the Halifax Evening Courier on its campaign and vocal opposition to this appointment; believes that the people of Calderdale will not support this decision; and calls upon Calderdale Council's Conservative Cabinet to reverse this decision which is at best shortsighted, and at worst provocative and offensive towards ethnic minorities in Calderdale.]
	In view of the television programme, which is due to be shown tonight, that apparently includes film of BNPmembers fantasising about machine-gunning worshipers at mosques with a million bullets, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that we had a debate in this House on the activities of the BNP, on the Conservative party's position towards the BNP and, in particular, on the BNP's contribution to racial equality and community cohesion?

Peter Hain: I agree with my hon. Friend on that matter. One of the BNP members who appears in the BBC film is quoted in The Sun this morning:
	"My dream is to have a Transit van with a machine gun in the back, you know like they have in the back of the helicopters, with about a million bullets. All wired up to it, just open the doors outside the mosque on a Friday afternoon when they are all coming out."
	That is a statement of the vilest kind from a vile party of Nazis and thugs, and the sooner we confront it and beat it, the better. The organisation has long-standing criminal connections, and we should wipe it off the electoral landscape by taking it on at the ballot box. West Yorkshire police takes those claims seriously, and it will consider whether sufficient evidence exists to prosecute. It is also important that the House reaffirms our support for the rights of all individuals to worship Islam, which is one of the world's greatest religions. The Government respect and value the major economic and cultural contribution that the British Muslim community makes to our country.

Greg Knight: Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the number of Government decisions that are not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny because they are made using the royal prerogative? Is he aware that his Department keeps no central record of how many such decisions each Department makes? Will he therefore ask the Modernisation Committee, of which he is the Chairman, to look into ways of making the use of the royal prerogative subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

Peter Hain: That is an interesting and novel constitutional question. On the question whether to go to war in Iraq, the Government abandoned the tradition of deciding to make war by royal prerogative and came to the House to seek its consent in a vote. I shall bear the right hon. Gentleman's points in mind, but the British constitution has long relied, for good or ill, on the royal prerogative.

Jim Sheridan: As someone whose constituency lies outside London, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in recognising the professional service delivered by the staff in the House of Commons Travel Office. He knows that that service could be jeopardised by the change of supplier; will he use his influence to make sure that the new supplier protects those staff, their jobs and their conditions and, more importantly, that the service delivered to hon. Members is not compromised?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point of which the Administration Committee will want to take careful note. I do not want to see the future of any staff jeopardised in the way that he fears, and those staff will be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. I use the Travel Office and confirm that the staff do a fine job—we all rely on their expertise and professionalism.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Leader of the House indicate what progress, if any, has been made on the Northern Ireland Grand Committee meeting on occasions in the Province itself? The issue is especially important given the continued absence of devolution in Northern Ireland.

Peter Hain: That is not a matter for me, but the hon. Gentleman has raised it properly, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want to take it into account.

Graham Stringer: I am sure that you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Cook of the Office for National Statistics cannot count. Mr. Cook has got the population figure for Manchester wrong by nearly 7 per cent. and has made similar mistakes on about 20 other towns, cities and boroughs around the country, which obviously impacts on funding streams. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made a rational and sensible decision to adjust its funding figures for local government in Manchester and other places because of those mistakes. Unfortunately and incredibly, however, the Department of Health has not adjusted its figures, so the health service in Manchester will probably be underfunded by £20 million. Does my right hon. Friend not think that time should be found to discuss that extraordinary situation, in which two Departments are responding to the same statistical mistake in different ways?

Peter Hain: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in raising the matter. The Secretary of State for Health and the Deputy Prime Minister will want carefully to reflect on the implications for funding and services in Manchester.

Michael Fallon: Following this week's announcement that the Government are to sack more than 100,000 of their own civil servants, which is more than 10 per cent. of the payroll, in the interests of equity, may we have an early debate on how we might attain a commensurate reduction in the number of Ministers?

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the number of Ministers has been pretty constant and the limit is defined on a statutory basis. He also knows that this is part of a programme of transferring staff from back-office functions, especially with the use of new technology and efficiency measures, to deliver extra front-line services. That is an objective that the people of Britain will applaud and it stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported, who repeatedly cut front-line services in health, education, policing and just about everything that matters to people.

David Winnick: On the Hunting Bill, is not the position that, if the Parliament Acts are to be used, as the large majority of Labour MPs want, the measure rejected by the Lords will have to be sent back to the Lords one month before the end of the present Session? Is my right hon. Friend aware that not disclosing when the Parliament Act will be used, or if it is to be used at all, will lead to growing disappointment and worry that we will repeat the situation in the last Parliament and that, despite the large majority in favour of banning hunting with dogs, no effort will be made to ensure that the measure becomes an Act during this Parliament? The only way of doing that is through he Parliament Acts, and time is getting very short indeed.

Peter Hain: I am not sure that time is getting as short as my hon. Friend suggests. We are well aware of the timetabling issues concerned. I have little to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr.   Meale), other than to repeat that, as the Prime Minister has made clear, we intend to resolve the issue in this Parliament.

John Gummer: The Leader of the House will understand that some of us who voted against the war did so because we did not believe what the Prime Minister said. Many others, on both sides of the House, did not follow us in that because they did believe what the Prime Minister said. I put this to the Leader of the House as someone who cares passionately about it: if we are to discuss the issue properly, we need the Prime Minister here so that he can explain very clearly why he told the House that he had assurance when he clearly did not have that assurance. That is absolutely clear from the Butler report.
	The fact that the Prime Minister is not coming to the House is the main issue for those of us who voted against the war. Can we please have an understanding that he will come to the House so that those of us who were not even able to ask a question will at least be able to hear him explain what for many of us is one of the most disgraceful elements of this Government?

Peter Hain: I understand and respect the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. As his vote demonstrated, he honestly and clearly took a different opinion on whether Britain should have gone to war to topple Saddam Hussein, and that is fine. But the Prime Minister came to the House yesterday to make a detailed statement and to answer detailed questions, and he was challenged in detail on all these matters. That is what he did in the debate on the Hutton report and has done consistently in Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to rerun his basic and fundamental disagreement with the Government—which is on a matter of principle, and I respect that—in the face of four independent inquiries that covered half a million words and more than 1,000 pages and which disagreed with the fundamental proposition of the right hon. Gentleman and critics of the war: that the Government acted in a disingenuous fashion. We did not. We saw the evidence—the Prime Minister saw it and I saw it—and we acted honestly on it. That is the situation.

Kali Mountford: Tomorrow, the schools break up for the summer holidays. When we return in September, would it be a good idea to examine the behaviour of some young boys over the summer months? In my area, they have been using replica guns and air rifles as a source of entertainment. Should not the House have an opportunity to discuss restrictions on air rifles and the possible banning of replica guns?

Peter Hain: That is an important issue, not only in my hon. Friend's constituency but in many others where youngsters are acting in an extremely antisocial fashion. It is a great shame that some Members of this House, especially the Liberal Democrats, have voted consistently against tough laws to clamp down on youth yobbery, including that which she describes. In the end, that weakness in the face of antisocial behaviour will be judged harshly by the voters.

Andrew Mitchell: Will the Leader of the House give favourable consideration to holding a debate on the importance of savings to our economy? It is clear that the Government are not really interested in promoting savings, because their current economic position is underpinned by high personal indebtedness, an overheating housing sector, steeply increased public expenditure and very high consumer spending. Will not the Government's neglect of the importance of savings be at the top of the charge sheet when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moves out of No. 11?

Peter Hain: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's charge. People right across Britain, of all incomes and ages, are enjoying greater prosperity and economic stability than in recent living memory.
	On debt, whether in the case of mortgages or other loans, the very low interest rates mean that the proportion of people's disposable income that is required to fund those loans and mortgages is much lower than it has been in the past. That is the benefit of low interest rates, low inflation, continued growth and continued high employment that we have benefited from under a Labour Government compared with the shabby record of the Conservatives.

Geraint Davies: When will the Leader of the House find time to debate a review of land legislation that allows property companies such as Warborough Investments to become freeholders of community centres, such as Forrestdale Forum, for thousand of pounds, then to threaten and intimidate lay trustees with forfeiture of the lease, with the consequence of realising hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of profits by an unencumbered freehold, as they did in Brent? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law and local councils should protect community centres, which provide such valuable family and social facilities, from property companies armed with teams of aggressive lawyers?

Peter Hain: The account that my hon. Friend gives the House is disturbing. Nobody in those circumstances should be intimidated or threatened as he describes. Community centres do a valuable job in serving local communities and should enjoy the respect of everybody concerned.

Simon Thomas: Will the Leader of the House look again at the business for next Tuesday, when the Welsh Grand Committee is due to debate the draft Transport (Wales) Bill? As Secretary of State for Wales, the Leader of the House will be aware that that Bill transfers powers to the National Assembly from the Strategic Rail Authority, which the Secretary of State for Transport has just abolished. As we will have another opportunity next Tuesday to look again at rail infrastructure in Wales, and to welcome the Secretary of State's announcement earlier today, which follows Plaid Cymru policies, can we widen that debate to discuss how those new ideas can be properly funded in Wales? What is the Leader of the House going to do with the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, which now looks rather redundant?

Peter Hain: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of following Plaid Cymru policy—that would send us up a closed branch line. As regards the Transport (Wales) Bill, we were well aware of the impending announcement on the rail review by the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision was taken to introduce the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we are aware that amendments may be required, either in the Bill itself or through technical amendments to the Strategic Rail Authority legislation that will be necessary to implement the White Paper. These matters are being taken closely into account, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to probe the issue in the Welsh Grand Committee.

Mike Wood: The Leader of the House will no doubt be surprised to hear that ambulance drivers regularly receive speeding tickets as part of their life-saving work, and even more surprised that ambulance trusts around the country spend £1 million a year to resolve that issue. After a 37-year blemish-free career with the ambulance service, my constituent, Mick Ferguson, was under threat of prosecution for 10 months. On his behalf, and on that of his wife, Ann, and the GMB, his union, who supported him through that trauma, I warmly welcome last week's announcement by Department of Health Ministers that they intend to end that anomaly and to indemnify ambulance staff showing the blue light. We need a statement to the House so that we can unpick the detail of the announcement. When does it start, and does it apply to private ambulance companies as well as NHS—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must practise asking more concise questions. I think that the Leader of the House has the gist.

Peter Hain: I share my hon. Friend's frustration, as do the Government, which is why the Department of Health is working alongside the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to resolve the problem. Indeed, a new protocol is being drawn up by ACPO, as the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms   Winterton), announced when she spoke at the annual conference of the Ambulance Service Association on 2 July. She will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend said and will, I am sure, be able to clarify the position in due course.

Graham Brady: Can we have an early statement on the Government's policy of allowing the destruction of green belt land in metropolitan areas where it really counts, and replacing it with green belt in areas where there is little pressure for development? I have been pursuing statistics on that policy since 2 March, when I received a reply from a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister telling me that I would shortly receive a response with statistics. I tabled further written questions in May and June, only to be told that I would receive a reply as soon as possible. I could easily come to the conclusion that the Government have something to hide unless they make a statement in the near future.

Peter Hain: It is nonsense to suggest that we have anything to hide. We have a great deal to be proud of, as we are making much more use of brownfield sites to construct more housing and developments. The suggestion that we are about to destroy the green belt is a fabrication, albeit unintentional, from the hon. Gentleman. However, he got caught up in his own rhetoric, and for the record, we reject it entirely.

Chris Bryant: May we have a debate as soon as possible on an issue that is often hidden, but is probably the most significant one in many Welsh valley communities—incapacity benefit? There is considerable evidence to suggest that once people are on incapacity benefit for eight months, they are likely to be on it for at least eight years. Most people who start off with minor illnesses end up with serious ones. Can we have a thorough reform of incapacity benefit so that it is not a passport to poor health and low income but enables people to get back into work?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is right to identify a central problem in valley communities such as the ones that he and I represent in south Wales. It is because a large proportion of people are on incapacity benefit that the Government have introduced a number of pilots, working with individuals on benefit to find ways of allowing them to get back into work. Those pilots have been hugely successful, and the Department for Work and Pensions intends to roll out a much bigger programme to encourage people on incapacity benefit to end their dependency on benefit, get jobs and enjoy better health, thus securing greater opportunities and prosperity.

Roy Beggs: Does the Leader of the House share my concern that self-employed men in the United Kingdom, with the exception of men on low incomes or those who are of a certain age, are not entitled to statutory paternity pay? In view of the discrimination against many of the 2.5 million self-employed men that prevents them from taking time off to assist with the care of their new-born children, could we have a debate in the House to consider the extension of statutory paternity pay and end that discrimination?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting issue. I like to think of myself as a diligent constituency MP, as he undoubtedly is, but I have not come across the problem. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will want to pay close attention to his remarks and write to him about the matter.

Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the publication of what Butler called the "excellent quality papers" that were prepared for Cabinet Ministers but never seen by them, thus, the report said, reducing their scope for making political judgments? One Cabinet member has already said that, not only did he not see the papers but he was not aware of their existence. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has seen them?

Peter Hain: No, I have not, but I do not regard that as a problem. [Hon. Members: "Ah!] No, I do not, because other papers were produced. I referred earlier to 25 key meetings of Ministers and officials at which papers were considered.

Paul Flynn: That was uninformed discussion.

Peter Hain: I respect my hon. Friend's disagreement with the Government's decision on Iraq. He has an honourable point of view, and has argued it consistently and honestly. Equally, he should respect the fact that the decision was taken after a great deal of serious and detailed consideration. There was more high-quality, probing discussion of that issue in Cabinet than of any issue in the first period in which I was a member of the Cabinet. The notion that Cabinet Ministers closed their eyes and followed the Prime Minister into war is nonsense and a fabrication. The Butler inquiry also found that the way in which the Cabinet and the Government worked on the matter was, as I said earlier, no less effective than on other issues and other policy decisions.

Andrew Turner: If they have not got the papers, they do not need to close their eyes.
	Is the Leader of the House aware that our high commissioner to Kenya recently told business men about £188 million-worth of corruption under the new Government? He told them that their
	"earnings were being looted by the servants of the state"
	and that the gluttony of
	"practitioners now in government . . . causes them to vomit all over our shoes."
	I raised that speech with the Chancellor in Treasury questions, but he did not appear to know that a Government spokesman made it. Can we have a debate on the use of overseas aid and how much of it is corruptly abused?

Peter Hain: There was no suggestion, as I understand it, by the high commissioner that the allegation that the hon. Gentleman makes was the issue.

Tony McNulty: What about the Opposition's cuts?

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend reminds me, if we are debating overseas aid, there will be an opportunity to remind the public and the House of the massive cuts planned for overseas aid and development assistance by the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition following their freeze on all non-school and health funding in the first two years of a Tory Government. As for Cabinet government, there is an obsession with processology, which was raised earlier in the House. People cannot live with, or accept, the fact that four independent inquiries headed by eminent people of the utmost integrity have now disproved all the allegations of disingenuousness and other criticisms levelled at the Government concerning their decision to go into Iraq. People should surely accept that we acted honestly, just as we accept the fact that critics of the Government have an honest difference of opinion with us.

Jon Trickett: Royal Mail deliveries in my constituency are increasingly erratic and recently 60-odd letters to businesses and companies were dumped in an empty shop. My right hon. Friend will share my admiration for Post Office workers who, day after day, whatever the weather, tramp through the streets of our constituencies. Will he organise time for a debate on the use by Royal Mail management of temporary staff and agency workers, which produces more erratic deliveries than we would want as constituency MPs?

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend made a valid point in raising the use of temporary and agency staff to plug gaps in the system that should be filled by trained postmen and women, who do a fantastic job. I am glad that he expressed his admiration for the Post Office workers in his constituency. The Post Office and Royal Mail management must address that issue urgently, particularly in his constituency.

Points of Order

Alistair Burt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to raise the use of the word "shifty". On 1 February 1994, I was called to account by Madam Speaker for good-humouredly but mistakenly using the word "shifty" in relation to the late Donald Dewar—a less shifty man one could not hope to find. She made it clear that if the word was used in relation to an individual rather than their policies she would take the matter seriously and demand a retraction. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you or Mr. Speaker looked at Hansard, because I distinctly heard the Leader of the House use the word "shifty" in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. If he falls foul of that ruling, he should come to the House and apologise as I was rightly required to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did in fact hear what was said by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the epithet was attached to the word "opportunism" as opposed to being directly attached to a person. There is a fine distinction to be made between those two things: if an hon. Member is attacked directly with a derogatory word, we deprecate that. This applies to Front Benchers and to all Members of the House: we are enjoined to use moderate language at all times. I do not believe that it lifts our standing in the eyes of the electorate when language is used that, on reflection, is agreed not to be the most suitable for the occasion.

Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House had the opportunity to say that there would be condemnation in all parts of the House of the thuggery, vicious remarks and incitement to racial hatred of the British National party, and that it was the duty of all parties to fight that behaviour. On behalf of the Opposition, I want to make it clear that we contest seats against the BNP everywhere in the country and we passionately disagree with its views. In all parts of the House, we hate its creed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wished to place that on the record, but he will know that it does not require a ruling from the Chair.

Traffic Management Bill [Ways and Means] [No.2]

Tony McNulty: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in connection with permit schemes.
	I shall try my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be neither shifty nor opportunistic.
	On Second Reading, a Ways and Means resolution authorised
	"the charging of fees in relation to permits issued, or applications for permits to be issued, under permit schemes".
	That wording was tied closely to the wording of the Bill as it existed at the time, and it would not be consistent with the amendments made in another place to allow fees to be charged in connection with the variation of permits. Variation might be needed, for example, when an undertaker approached an authority to ask for an already issued permit to be varied to allow more time for works to be carried out. Therefore, it was necessary for the Ways and Means resolution to be drafted so as to cover variation and to reflect the amendments that were agreed by all parties in the other place. It is merely a technicality, and no more.

Greg Knight: Will the Minister clarify one matter? Is not the Ways and Means resolution drawn fairly widely, so that instead of merely allowing fees to be charged in connection with permit schemes to recover costs only, it could result in some local authorities charging fees in connection with permit schemes to make a whopping profit?

Tony McNulty: I do not accept that. This point was raised at length in the Grand Committee and in all subsequent stages in the other place. Certainly, their lordships felt able to endorse the amendments put forward. This was one of the strongest points put in that debate, and if their lordships can come to that position, I hope that this House would also agree the point—

Greg Knight: Not necessarily.

Tony McNulty: I know that it will not necessarily be the case. The point is merely to reflect the amendments as drawn up in the other place. Given that the words of the original Ways and Means resolution were drawn so tightly in relation to the clauses on permits in the Bill as discussed in this place, it needs to move on technically to reflect those amendments to include variation on permits rather than simply their application. I strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is not being anything other than helpful in terms of the debate, to examine the Lords Hansard, where he will see that this question was explored in full. That is not the purpose of amending the Ways and Means resolution.

Andrew Mitchell: I fully accept the undertaking that the Minister has given in response to my right hon. Friend's question. Although the House has heard what he said, can he direct us to the specific place in the legislation where the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) made is ruled out?

Tony McNulty: I can indeed. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which we are asking the House to agree today—they have already been agreed in the other place—make explicit the Government's intention that permit schemes should not be used by local authorities to raise significant amounts of revenue at the expense of those carrying out necessary works in the street. Instead, the level of fees should be linked to the cost to the authorities of operating the schemes and no more. Exactly what those costs should be, such as those in relation to processing applications for a permit, keeping a register of permits, and ensuring that those issues of permits comply with any condition attached to them, will be set out in regulations. It is those changes in amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which have been agreed by the other place, that necessitate the change. We made explicit in those debates in the other place that what I have just said is what prevails. That is entirely the point that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) just made.
	With that short introduction, I commend the new Ways and Means resolution to the House.

Damian Green: I, too, will seek to meet your instruction to be moderate in language at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will do so, too.
	It is always worth while for the House to note a Ways and Means resolution, not least because it often means that another stealth tax is on the way from this Government. We have seen that on many previous occasions, and many people will be rightly suspicious that that is precisely what we are seeing again today. The Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends have already referred to previous debates on this issue, both in Committee and in another place. The Minister will be aware of genuine and considerable concern that part of the purpose of this aspect of the Bill is simply to be a revenue-raising measure. He has sought to reassure the House in the past couple of minutes that that is not the case. He was not wholly convincing, as he said that we would have to wait for the regulations to ensure that. We are right to be suspicious that we have not yet been told how that will happen.
	Even before we get to discuss the details of the proposal, it is important to establish the principle. On the surface, it appears flatly to contradict what the Minister said in Committee. He made the point that all these matters should be dealt with in regulations, and, referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), he said that he understood where he was coming from, but that
	"the Bill is not about introducing permit schemes as a revenue-raising exercise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 163.]
	In that case, why do we need a Ways and Means resolution? We need it precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise. The very existence of this debate shows that, no doubt inadvertently, the Minister was misleading the Committee, and that this part of the Bill was always intended as a revenue-raising exercise. It is a resolution put forward by a Treasury Minister, perfectly properly, no doubt on the advice of the House authorities that this part of the Bill requires a Ways and Means resolution, precisely because it is a revenue-raising exercise.
	The Minister went further in Committee. He said:
	  "I do not think that it will be a revenue-making scam".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 165.]
	I hope that that counts as moderate language. We would excuse him of wanting to promote a revenue-making scam—it is not a scam at all, as it is perfectly clear that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to raise revenue, and I am glad that at least Treasury Ministers agree. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's response to that.
	This is an important matter, because we need to address who will end up paying this new stealth tax that the Government are imposing on us. On the surface of it, it will be paid by relatively unpopular bodies—the utilities. They are always a good, unpopular target, as all of us have been stuck in traffic jams when the road is being dug up, and we tend to blame the gas company, the electricity company, the cable television company, or whoever it is. Such companies have to dig up the roads to promote their business, and all Members will want such work to be carried out as speedily and efficiently as possible, so that disruption is minimised.
	But the truth is that this permit scheme potentially involves revenue raising, and in the end it will be not the companies themselves that pay the tax, but all of us, as their customers. When I say us all, I mean us all. Everyone in this country is a customer of one or other of the utilities, so particularly during emergencies or when the supply of an essential service is cut off, we welcome the fact that they are able to dig up the road, repair the problem and get our lives back to normal. There is genuine concern that, as a result of this potentially revenue-raising measure, the bills of every household in this country will be increased to pay for it.
	It is also noteworthy that this measure seems to cut across the policies of other Departments. In their exercising of power, this Government, who promised us joined-up government, want to promote broadband. However, making digging up the roads more expensive will make the roll-out of broadband more expensive and difficult, and it will therefore happen more slowly. The Minister should perhaps talk to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry, who constantly tell us that broadband Britain will be one of this Government's triumphs.

Brian White: Given that most of the urgently required broadband involves connection from the kerb to the house, can the hon. Gentleman explain what the hell he is talking about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here a few moments ago, when I appealed for the use of traditional, customary and moderate language.

Brian White: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the hon. Gentleman's apology, which will be accepted.

Damian Green: Most broadband does involve such connection, but to connect from the road to the kerb requires digging up the road first. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is more than welcome to visit my constituency, large parts of which are rural. There, the idea that the basic infrastructure already exists is a fantasy. That may not be true of his constituency, but it certainly is of many parts of the country, so this is an urgent issue.
	We shall in due course discuss the power and responsibilities of local authorities, but it is worth pointing out now that the motion makes it clear that local authorities will be tempted to make money out of this scheme. The Minister tried to reassure us that that will not be possible, but he was unable to convince us. Frankly, he is skating on thin ice. Given that the very existence of this motion contradicts what he told us in Committee, a little humility would be in order. He should admit that he got it wrong in Committee, and that he is trying to correct matters now. He will understand why the House is mildly and moderately suspicious of his motives.

John Thurso: I have just one question for the Minister. Does this extension come under the auspices of the permit schemes, and do the Government's amendments requiring charges to be cost-reflective and efficiently incurred therefore apply equally to this extension?

Eric Forth: I was shocked when I heard the Minister say in a casual way that if the House of Lords approves a thing, we should in effect nod it through; at least, that seemed to be the gist of what he said. I must admit that I am rather keen on that doctrine. If we applied it, for example, to hunting, postal votes or the Lord Chancellor, we would be in an interestingly new political world. So I thank the Minister for his inspirational lead, and in respect of those purposes I welcome his suggestion that any matter to which their Lordships agree need not be further considered in this House. I hope that he, as a representative of the Government, will convey that suggestion to the Prime Minister—unless, of course, the Prime Minister conveyed it to him.
	That comment usefully set the tone for this little debate on the Ways and Means motion. I was then inspired by the interpretation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). Following my last attempt at debating a Ways and Means resolution, during which I fell foul of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—not an unusual event, I admit—I again consulted "Erskine May" on this matter. It is clear that my hon. Friend had already consulted "Erskine May", because he obviously took on board exactly what it says on page 897 of the completely up-to-date 23rd edition:
	"A Ways and Means resolution is a necessary preliminary to the imposition of a new tax, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of the incidence of a tax so as to include persons not already tax-payers. It is immaterial whether the tax is solely intended to provide revenue for the public service, or whether its primary purpose is to regulate imports or to promote other public policy objectives."
	As ever, "Erskine May" says it all. There we have revealed before us the very reason why we need a Ways and Means motion before us today: to raise a tax. A tax by any other name is just as painful, and a tax is what we are dealing with. It may well be dressed up as fees, but in the end people will have to pay it.

John Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is sometimes necessary to levy a tax or fee, and that it is very much better to be honest with the public and tell them that one is doing so? People become suspicious when Governments try to hide such things. Is not the real problem that the Government are trying to hide something, which must mean that the provision is actually much worse than it appears?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Sad to say, in this post-Butler era we are entitled to have exactly such a suspicion. All of us would like public life in this country to be renowned, as it used to be, for its integrity and transparency. However, we can no longer make such claims, and we will have to set our minds to that issue when we are in government.
	Having sought guidance from "Erskine May", I then went straight to the Bill itself—as you would expect me to do, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to see whether I could tease out what lies behind this apparently innocuous Ways and Means motion.

Andrew Mitchell: May I take my right hon. Friend back to his earlier point about the insidious nature of such transport permit schemes? Is he aware, for example, that the economics of the London congestion charge—a permit scheme of a sort—depend not on the charge itself but on the enormous number of fines that are paid for not obtaining an adequate permit when travelling through London in a car?

Eric Forth: I would like to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about fines, but not in the context of the London congestion charge; definitely not. There probably will be cause to reflect on what he said, but strictly in the context of the Bill giving rise to the Ways and Means motion. If I may, I shall build towards what he said, rather than responding immediately; nevertheless, I am grateful to him.
	I want to dwell for a moment on the phrase:
	"it is expedient to authorise".
	I always worry when I see such a phrase used in a Ways and Means motion. It may well be expedient, but is it correct and proper? Do we approve of it? Expediency surely should not be the criterion for judging these matters. In this modern age of new Labour, expediency may well be a sufficient reason to justify levying upon the innocent taxpayer, but I certainly do not approve of that. Indeed, the use of that word is in itself almost reason enough for me to vote against this Ways and Means motion, not for it. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that the word "expedient" gives him any cover.
	The resolution is bland and gives nothing of the background or detail. We are expected, as so often, effectively to sign a blank cheque on behalf of our taxpayers. We must look to the Bill for guidance. Clause 36 on permit regulations says that the
	"appropriate national authority may by regulations . . . make provision with respect to the content, preparation, submission, approval, operation, variation or revocation of permit schemes."
	Horror of horrors, the "appropriate national authority" is none other than the Sec of State. Right away, we have the scary phenomenon of the Secretary of State being given unlimited powers to make regulations. So far, so bad; it then gets worse.
	Clause 36(5) says that the permit regulations—made by the Secretary of State, no less—
	"may make provision for or in connection with requiring the payment of a fee in respect of an application for a permit or the issue of a permit".
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford helpfully said that we are talking about utilities applying for permits to dig up roads. We now have a lethal combination; the Secretary of State setting out the basis on which utilities will make applications, from which the fees will flow.
	As my hon. Friend suggested, it is no good the Minister saying that it will not be the consumer or the taxpayer who will pay; it will be the wicked utilities. As my hon. Friend said, the utilities will not be paying the fees. They have only our money. My hon. Friend missed a trick here, because it is not just the consumer who might pick up a larger utility bill to pay the fee. It could be the shareholder, but since shareholders and consumers overlap to a large extent, that is no excuse either. Someone, somewhere will have to pay for all this. It is not one of those things that sounds good if one says it quickly, which I am not inclined to do. My hon. Friend put his finger on it when he used the term stealth tax, which sums it up.
	The Bill refers to
	"the amount or maximum amount of any fee"—
	there is some small comfort in that—and to
	"cases in which fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid."
	That is encouraging, and the Minister might say whether he thinks that the number of cases where fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid will be minimal, substantial or significant. That would give us guidance as to how much of an imposition this will be on our hapless voters and taxpayers. The Bill also refers to
	"cases in which fees may be discounted".
	There are subtleties here that I would not have suspected had I not read the Bill in some detail.

Damian Green: In Committee, the Minister said:
	"The clause as it stands is merely about defining—ill-defining perhaps—the permit scheme, rather than that level of detail. I would ask to leave that detail to regulation". —[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 29 January 2004; c. 154.]
	I am sure that that will make my right hon. Friend even more suspicious.

Eric Forth: I am grateful, sort of, to my hon. Friend. We are asked to approve Ways and Means resolutions without any details, and that is made worse when we hear that they will be spelled out in regulations. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque on behalf of our taxpayers, fee payers, stealth tax payers or any other category we care to mention.
	That is not satisfactory, and it is not unreasonable for us to ask the Minister how far he feels fees will be automatic, comprehensive and at the maximum level. The authority is, after all, the Secretary of State. The Minister works for the Secretary of State—and, presumably, talks to him occasionally—so I would expect some guidance as to his expectation. We need guidance as to whether we are talking about maxima, minima, every time or some of the time, or whether fees are to be payable, repaid or discounted.
	We then come to a point that was touched on by my   hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell)—the time and manner of the payment of fees. It would be useful if we were given some indication of the relationship between the authority, the utilities and their consumers or shareholders, and of whether there will be any possibility of deferred payments. Would fines be payable and levied on those who failed to pay the initial fees? If so, what sort of fines are we talking about? It may be that if the fees are not paid, no fines would be levied, which would be interesting. If fines are to be payable, or contemplated, we need to know more before we decide whether to support the resolution.
	Clause 36(5)(e) refers to
	"the application of sums paid by way of fees."
	I am not quite sure of the implication of that but it obviously has a bearing. The fees enabled by the resolution will be applied in a way we know not how, because we have no guidance.
	I wish that Ministers would take the hint from the House, and that they would tell us what was on their mind, as well as the extent that taxpayers would be involved, so that we as Members of Parliament can make a judgment. I do not think that that is asking too much. I hope that I have given the Minister something to work on today. I look forward to him persuading me why I should vote in favour of the resolution.

Greg Knight: I shall not detain the House for long. On most occasions when I have heard the Minister at work, I have found him a powerful advocate, but I am afraid that his powers of advocacy rather deserted him today. He has not convinced me, certainly at this stage, that the Ways and Means resolution is either necessary or desirable. Those are the two tests that the House needs to apply. Is the motion necessary to enable the Government todischarge their business in the Bill, and is it desirable?
	I intervened during the Minister's opening remarks, but he discounted my concerns. I was worried that the charging of fees could be another money-raising exercise, but he said no and that he had done his best to ensure that the fees would recover costs only. He referred me to Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29, which are relevant to the Ways and Means resolution, but what do they say? Do they reassure the House or add to the concerns expressed?
	As I look at Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29, I find my concerns deepening and not being allayed by the Minister's reference. Under amendment No. 29, we are told that
	"the appropriate national authority must try to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the fees payable in connection with permit schemes do not exceed such costs".
	What does
	"so far as . . . reasonably practicable"
	mean? I notice that the amendment does not contain any requirement that the costs have to be reasonable: it simply refers to "such costs". A local authority could set up a body and employ council employees at great expense, as there is no duty on those issuing the permits to behave in a reasonable way and keep their costs down. I would have thought that the amendment should contain such provisions.

Eric Forth: I may be able to help my right hon. Friend. He has, of course, read all the provisions and a later amendment actually refers to
	"such costs in connection with permit schemes as may be prescribed."
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that the provision goes even further than he is assuming and that the costs will be prescribed, I suspect, by the Secretary of State? That may not give my right hon. Friend any comfort, but that was my reading of the provision. Was it his?

Greg Knight: That means that it could go either way. A Conservative Secretary of State would, as we all know, impose a provision that the costs had to be reasonable, but I am much less certain about what might be put in place by the present Government. It goes even further because Lords amendment No. 27 refers to the giving of fixed penalty notices. It occurs to me that, if we are charging people for a permit and even if it is a reasonable charge that recoups the cost of issuing it, those issuing the permits are still likely to be awash with money because of the issuing of fixed penalty notices. That poses the question why we need to charge for a permit at all. Why not issue a free permit to the contractor and make bad contractors pay the fixed penalty notice fines? The money received through such payments would undoubtedly cover the cost of issuing the permits in the first place.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is on to an extremely good point, which reinforces the reservations that he expressed—with which I agree—in his opening remarks. The whole nature of the financing arrangement through permits, including the question of how much money will be raised and what the Government's assumptions are, must be significantly explored before the House can vote on the resolution. For example, does the Minister believe that a certain percentage of the total money raised will come from people defaulting on the permits and subsequently being fined? What percentage will come from that mechanism?

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend raises a very good point and I hope that the Minister will reply to it in his winding-up speech. I would have thought that he would have set out the answers to such questions in his opening speech rather than wait for them to be teased out by Opposition Members. These questions go right to the root of the question whether the Bill needs a Ways and Means resolution. I have to say that the Minister has not convinced me that that resolution is either necessary or desirable.
	What happens when a permit scheme is in place and the fees are rolling in, but it subsequently becomes clear to those examining the arrangements that the charging body is awash with fees because it has charged too much? There is no provision in any of the amendments for a refund of excessive fees. I applauded the decision of the late President Ronald Reagan when he was Governor of California; when he found out that his tax revenues were in excess of his spending plans, he gave the money back to the people of California. Why is there no similar provision to ensure that if, after the first 12 months of operation, the fees are deemed to be too high, they can be returned to those who paid them in the first place?

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I feel a bit hurt. He was obviously not paying his usual close attention to my modest contribution to the debate. I read out clause 36(5)(b) of the Bill, which makes provision for
	"cases in which fees are not to be payable or are to be repaid".
	If my right hon. Friend does not mind, we could perhaps call this the "Ronald Reagan" provision. There it is—in black and white, and in the Bill.

Greg Knight: Perhaps the Minister could therefore clarify whether my right hon. Friend is right and whether, if the fees were leading to huge profits, a refund would be made. It is not entirely clear to me that that is the Government's intention.

Andrew Mitchell: On that point, can my right hon. Friend think of any occasion when such a repayment has ever been made?

Greg Knight: In relation to permit fees, no, I cannot think of any occasion when refunds have been made. However, one should always be prepared to look afresh at issues and problems. The fact that it may not have happened in the UK in the past is not a good argument, in my view, for saying that it should not happen in the future. I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that if the Bill allows it to be done, it should be done.
	The Minister referred to Lords amendment No. 29, but it does not seem to me to contain any sanctions at all in respect of incorrect calculations or huge profits being made from permit fees. What sanctions are there? Does the Minister expect an aggrieved member of the public to embark on judicial proceedings to bring about a review of the permit fees? There should be a far simpler mechanism in place to enable the fees to be reduced without members of the public having to have recourse to their own court proceedings.
	There are many unanswered questions and unless the Minister can answer them all satisfactorily, I will not believe that the Bill needs a Ways and Means resolution.

Tony McNulty: Many of the points raised by Opposition Members are entirely fair, but they have already been discussed at length when we debated the original Ways and Means resolution and subsequently both in Committee and in the other place. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is entirely right when he quotes "Erskine May". How could he not be, as "Erskine May" is our bible? If we want to assume any revenue-raising powers of any description, there must be a Ways and Means resolution. That was made clear on Second Reading.
	There was much discussion in Committee about the breadth of the original Ways and Means resolution. The need to deal with those matters made us look at the problem and table amendments in the other place.
	I have not sought to introduce a new McNulty doctrine that we should agree without reservation anything agreed in the House of Lords, save for instances, such as the amendments introduced in the other place on this particular part of the Bill. They were whizzed through the House with unanimity and utter cross-party consensus. If ever an issue, such as fox hunting, were agreed and dispatched without reservation, but with full consensus and cross-party agreement in the other place, I would gladly at least look at it in some detail here.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), yes, the level of permit fees must be directly linked to the costs of operating the scheme. The same applies to fees for extending or varying the scheme. That is precisely how the resolution is drafted. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in Committee, this is not intended to be revenue raising, and that remains the case. That was the case then and it is the case now. Because subsequent to our debates and debates in the House of Lords many Members of all parties in both Houses and many from the utility companies sought amendments that would, in their terms, restrict the Ways and Means resolution precisely to the cost of a permit scheme, we introduced the subsequent amendments that mean an adjustment to that resolution. Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 have been positively welcomed by the utility companies and all parties in the other place. They make it explicit that the fees allowed are confined to the cost to the local authorities and the running of the permit scheme. It is precisely because of fears of open-ended revenue raising and of my view that this should not be seen as a revenue-raising exercise that the amendments have been introduced with the subsequent adjustment to this particular Ways and Means resolution.
	The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) asked about the assorted criteria for decisions, how to vary the level of permits and the right of appeal. All those elements are covered in detail in the Bill at clause 36(4).
	I fully accept that none of my subsequent points will be of any interest to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in that the first set of permit regulations will be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses. We have set up—the right hon. Gentleman will enjoy this—a working group of utilities and local authorities to look in detail at how the schemes should work and how the regulations in clause 36(4) should work in practice. It will make recommendations to us on the level of fees, among other things, and which works will not attract fees, and it is likely to report back to us in August. That is all as outlined in clause 36(4).
	We started the process with a Ways and Means resolution on Second Reading to allow fees to be charged for permits, should local authorities choose to have a permit system. During our deliberations and subsequent deliberations in the other place we thought that perhaps that resolution was drawn too widely and could, potentially, allow open-ended revenue raising powers to follow from the permit scheme. As a mature, reflective Government, we listened to debate both here and in the other place and to concerns from the utility companies and others who will be directly concerned—I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) about broadband—and we have come back with Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29 that far more narrowly define the scope of the permit regimes so that the fees can be related only to the costs of implementing such a scheme and cannot be an open-ended revenue-raising scheme. In other words we listened and listened again.
	The amendments are welcome. The utility companies and all parties in the other place across the board cheered from the rafters. There was no dissent at all. We agreed them in the other place and we bring them here. Subsequent to this resolution being passed, we shall debate those amendments that we seek the House to agree with the Lords on. We need the Ways and Means resolution changed to reflect those amendments to which we have already agreed in response to all the concerns of the utilities and other parties. While I understand the fun involved, not least for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is a master at his craft, this is innocuous in its intention and is necessary to reflect changes that we accept from the other place. I repeat my desire to commend the new, more restrictive Ways and Means resolution to the House in the hope that we might get on to the more substantive points subsequently.

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 75.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Traffic Management Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in connection with permit schemes.

Traffic Management Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003]
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Traffic Management Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 5th January 2004:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 6.00 p.m. at this day's sitting.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be taken in the following order, namely Nos. 4 to 15, 1 to 3 and 16 to 109.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	4.
	The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 77.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Traffic Management Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 56. If the House agrees to the amendments, I shall arrange for the necessary entries to be made in the Journal.
	Lords amendment: No. 4.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 10; Lords amendment No. 11 and Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15.

Tony McNulty: When the House debated part 2, which is covered by the amendments, I explained the importance of the intervention powers and offered a number of assurances relating to the way in which they would be exercised. On Report in another place, my noble Friend Lord Davies made a robust defence, answering the concerns expressed there.
	We have said repeatedly—this goes to the core of the Bill—that local authorities are in the best position to deliver improvements in their area and to ensure that optimum use is made of their existing road network, but if they fail in that, it would be wrong for the Government to do nothing. That is why the new statutory network management duty is in place and why the intervention powers, which are the subject of the amendments and central to the Bill, are needed to ensure that that new duty is carried out.
	Intervention is not new or novel. Local and central Government have accepted the principle and have even gone as far as to agree a protocol governing how intervention should operate in practice. I assured the Standing Committee that subsequent regulations and guidance on intervention powers would fall within that protocol established between local and central Government.
	The process that we outlined in part 2 of the Bill is fully consistent with the protocol that is in place.
	In another place, it was said that it would be wrong to grant these powers without knowing the criteria that would be used to trigger them. Throwing out all the powers on that basis seems rather extreme, however. I note that when the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked at part 2 of the Bill, its only recommendation was that the guidance on the criteria for intervention should be subject to parliamentary procedure. That is an eminently sensible and reasonable approach, and the Government therefore accepted that recommendation and tabled their own amendments in that regard. These would give Parliament the opportunity to consider the relevant document through the negative resolution procedure, and we would wish to see them restored. As we have said, this guidance is being developed with the assistance of all the interested parties, including the Local Government Association.
	It was suggested in another place that the comprehensive performance assessment should be the means by which a council's performance of this duty should be measured. Clearly, consideration of transport as part of the environment block in the CPA could offer some useful evidence. However, I find it difficult to see how a process designed to assess a council's performance overall could be used as the sole trigger for intervention in relation to the network management duty.
	It was also said that the intervention provisions marked a fundamentally different approach to dealing with local government, but that ignores evidence to the contrary. One has only to look at the provisions in the Local Government Act 1999, which allow intervention in a council as a whole, to see how wrong that assertion is. There is no significant difference between the way in which those powers are exercised and the provisions that we placed in the Bill. As my noble Friend Lord Davies so forcefully put it, none of this is groundbreaking; it just follows a well-trodden path of prudent provision.
	As I said in Committee, I regard the use of intervention as an absolute last resort. As a consequence of much of the regulatory framework and other inspection frameworks that are now, by mutual agreement, imposed on local government, a whole range of local public service agreements and protocols is now in place, which means that local and central Government can work together to ensure that such intervention need not take place. It is important that people understand that that is the context in which this kind of intervention would take place. I do not want to do anything other than work with local government in this regard, but it is vital and central to the Bill that the network management duty should be given teeth. It can only have those teeth if that last resort of intervention exists.
	One group of amendments tabled in Committee sought to make the traffic manager responsible to central Government, which was not appropriate, although the sentiment behind them was that a traffic manager should be put in place to work with a potentially failing local authority before intervention became necessary, or instead of intervention. In the core of the Bill, we state that each local authority must have a designated officer, a traffic manager, who will be responsible for ensuring that the network management duty is carried out in full by a local authority. A traffic director would be put in place only subsequent to intervention, to rescue a failing local authority.
	After talking to the Local Government Association and others, we have decided that what is now considered good practice in many aspects of local government can prevail, so that there would be support, mentoring and help for local authorities that were in difficulty, long before intervention was needed. If central Government are imposing an additional statutory duty on local authorities, however, it is incumbent on us to put in place all the necessary mechanisms to secure the fulfilment of that statutory duty. Part of that process involves setting out what to do with a failing local authority, which is what the network management duty and the intervention measures are all about. In that regard, I strongly urge the House to support our motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, because we see the intervention powers as central to ensuring that the network management duty is achieved.

Damian Green: As the Minister said, this is clearly the key group of amendments. The debates in the other place did many good things for the Bill and resulted in a number of improvements, and I am glad that the Minister, from a sedentary position, agrees. This set of changes is one of the best things that their lordships did to the Bill.

Tony McNulty: You've lost me.

Damian Green: That was a short-lived consensus. The Minister is alone, because not only Conservative Members but Liberal Democrat Members oppose the Government's position—the Liberal Democrats spoke out in the House of Lords. The Minister is also opposed by the Local Government Association, which he quoted in his introduction as though it supports him. He said that it is co-operating in the preparation of guidance, but one would expect it to do so, because that is prudent and responsible.
	The LGA is currently being particularly prudent and responsible because it is under Conservative control again, with the extremely welcome election as its leader of Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, which is extremely good news for it and for local government generally. I expect it to act responsibly, but, as the Minister is fully aware, it is flatly against the Government's position on this set of amendments, about which it has made many cogent arguments.
	The Government's position genuinely puzzles me, since one of the new intellectual strands that thoughtful people around the Government promote is new localism—I am not sure whether the Minister avidly attends Institute for Public Policy Research seminars, where the bright young things of new Labour still gather. The attempt to reverse the Lords amendments, which are designed to protect the interests of local government in this country, shows that the new localism in new Labour simply equalises the old centralism. When push comes to shove, the Government want to control all details and all aspects of every policy.
	In another place, both Government and Opposition Members forcefully made the point that when they tried to find ways to amend the Bill, they found that the issue is a straightforward matter of principle about whether one believes in and supports local democracy. Both sides agree that there is no way to amend what the Government seek to do, so either one favours the Government's centralising control tendency or one is against it.
	The LGA puts it very well: the Government's attempt to reinstate the original clause
	"undermines local freedoms and accountability".
	I agree with its assessment, and it would be better for the Government if they did too, rather than attempting to reinstate the original clauses.
	The Government's position is objectionable for a number of reasons. First, their decision to overrule the local authority traffic director and simply impose one of their own is arbitrary, and arbitrary government is almost always bad government.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend may be about to answer my question, but I shall give him advance warning of what is on my mind. Does he agree that if—this is a real case—a party was elected to control a local authority on an explicit manifesto of removing road humps from the roads in the locality and, as is possible under the provision that their lordships wisely sought to remove, the Secretary of State stepped in to say, "You, the local authority, against the wishes of the electorate, will restore and maintain the road humps", that would be the clearest possible indication of the situation that my hon. Friend describes?

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend cites a good example, which, as he says, is from the real world. It involves Barnet and a different arm of the Labour movement—the re-Laboured Mayor of London, who is seeking to use his powers to thwart people's democratically expressed will. As my right hon. Friend anticipated, I intend to move on to the undemocratic nature of the Government's proposals.
	Leaving aside the problem that the Government's proposals are fundamentally undemocratic, nobody running a local authority can know what the ground rules are, because decisions are arbitrary. The Secretary of State will presumably announce that the local authority is not doing its job properly in terms of traffic management. He has not told the House on what basis he will reach that decision. Until we know what those criteria are, it is impossible for the House sensibly to support the proposals. As the Bill stands, any governing party would be able to make a decision about whether it wished to leave a local authority in control of its own traffic management arrangements purely on the basis of political partisanship. I would acquit even this Government of trying to behave like that. However, the fact that the Bill would permit that shows that it is in an unsatisfactory state as regards the potential arbitrariness of the application of the Secretary of State's rules.
	Secondly, the Government's proposals are unclear. The Local Government Association makes that point powerfully. The Government have resisted attempts to add to the clauses the essential detail that anyone would need to assess whether the relevant national authority would be required to provide more statutory justification for any proposed individual intervention. There is no acknowledgment of the financial cost to any authority facing intervention. Most importantly, what would be the timetable for disengagement? Under what criteria and over what time scale would the Government decide that a local authority had been punished enough and could therefore be given back control of its own traffic management proposals?
	Without that degree of detail, it is impossible for the House sensibly to support the Government's contention. We do not know how many people might be involved in a replacement or when the Secretary of State would consider that the traffic director had succeeded. There is a further complication. If it was deemed that a local authority was unsatisfactory and that the Government-appointed traffic director was more satisfactory, presumably the logic is that the Government would be in permanent control, because they could never know whether the local authority would mess up if given back control. The Minister has given us no clarification on that point.
	Thirdly, the new traffic managers would be unaccountable. They would presumably be responsible to the Secretary of State, and it is difficult to imagine how this House, as the place where the Secretary of State is democratically accountable, could be expected to take a detailed interest in the individual traffic management of each local authority. If dozens of local authorities were deemed unsatisfactory traffic managers would the House consider in Transport questions whether democratic accountability was in force? That would simply be absurd, so the Government need to provide an explanation. Traffic directors would be unaccountable to anyone in the local community where their actions would have the most daily effect. People in the community would not only not have any say in who those directors were, but they would certainly not have voted for them. To address the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about local democracy, the wishes of the democratically elected local authority would be overridden. Members on both sides of the House deplore low turnout at local elections, but announcing that a key duty of local authorities can be taken away on the whim of the Secretary of State is a recipe for driving turnout down even further. If the Government are going to second-guess the actions of local authorities as soon as they do something of which they disapprove, people will feel that there is even less reason to vote in local elections.
	The Government's proposals are also objectionable because they are impractical. The Minister said that the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment was an unsatisfactory means of judging local authorities' performance in areas such as traffic management. If that is the case, we should approve it. If it is comprehensive, presumably it assesses the performance of local authorities in every field of important endeavour, including traffic management in the case of those that act as traffic authorities. The Minister will be aware that the assessment has proved to be an effective means of supporting and improving the performance of weak local authorities, and should be used in the first instance—I am glad to see that he is nodding—if an authority faces difficulties in traffic management. As that tool for sensible and practical intervention is already available, we do not need another heavy-handed tool to remove local authority control altogether.
	The Department sets great store by local transport plans—local authorities certainly do so—which will be made redundant under the proposals. Even if a local authority is providing a decent service under its local transport plan, the Secretary of State will have the power to step in and override that control. The Minister will be aware that the Department for Transport aims to make the performance monitoring mechanisms under the local transport plans more effective and robust by introducing a regime of penalties for poor performance and rewards for good performance, which is much more sensible than the proposals in the Government amendments. Finally, on practicality, the Bill does not acknowledge the additional financial and administrative burden that will be placed on a so-called failing authority when reporting to an imposed director.
	The Government have, as the Minister said, made a robust response in another place. Lord Davies of Oldham said that they would intervene only as "a last resort" on an authority that was
	"manifestly failing to live up to its duties".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 June 2004; Vol. 663, c. 169.]
	We do not know what manifest failure means, as the Government will not give us details of the criteria against which any local authority will be judged. Without those criteria, it is impossible for the House to accept Ministers' explanation that only manifest failure would lead to Government intervention.

Eric Forth: May I try to help my hon. Friend? I say that with some diffidence as a newcomer to the Bill. One of the great joys of this stage in proceedings is that those of us who did not have the joy of serving on the Committee can now represent our voters on such a matter, which is of great interest in my constituency. Clause 20, which is under consideration, says:
	"If the appropriate national authority considers that a local traffic authority may be failing properly to perform any of their duties under sections 16 and 17",
	one of which refers to the following objective:
	"securing the expeditious movement of traffic".
	That is a hint for my hon. Friend. I presume that the Secretary of State will look down from his pinnacle, judge whether my authority in Bromley is
	"securing the expeditious movement of traffic",
	and be able to judge on that basis whether to appoint this interloper to decide what will happen in Bromley.

Damian Green: My right hon. Friend is characteristically helpful, and, as he says, brings a fresh mind to this unsatisfactory part of the Bill. The point that he raises is interestingly controversial: he may or may not be aware that the Transport Committee, in considering that very point, has argued throughout the process of this Bill that relying purely on the "expeditious movement of traffic" as the only measure of satisfactory traffic management is inadequate. It would be possible, although not under the terms of this debate, for the House to debate that. There are those who argue that traffic managers should have as an explicit duty some kind of environmental consideration, and not only the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who may have a different view on this matter from me and my right hon. Friend.
	What is profoundly relevant to this debate, however, is that there is not a clear measure to which everyone could sign up, whereby one can say, "This is how we measure whether a local traffic manager is doing a job properly." There are honest differences of opinion about what set of criteria the Government should operate before deciding whether the local authority is doing a job satisfactorily. Even if we examine the particular clauses, the House is not given enough guidance to accept that the Government have reached a satisfactory conclusion on this matter. The problem is that the safeguards promised by the Government in another place are simply not there. That illustrates a wider problem with the Bill: it has always been an inadequate means to achieve a desirable end—less traffic congestion.

Eric Forth: It is also the case that clause 17, which is also referred to in clause 20 now under consideration, refers teasingly in subsection (4)(a) to the fact that the traffic manager, which is now also being imposed on the local authority, must
	"identify things (including future occurrences)".
	Apparently, we now expect the as yet unappointed bureaucrat to have the gift of foresight in order to fulfil his duties to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. Does my hon. Friend think that that is at all reasonable?

Damian Green: I agree that it seems unreasonable. It would seem unreasonable were the traffic manager to be appointed by a democratically elected local body, which is more likely to have some kind of gift of foresight as to what its area might want in the time ahead. It is markedly less likely, however, that a central functionary appointed at the whim of and to serve the interests of a Secretary of State in a distant Department will have the sensitivity to anticipate what people might want in terms of their traffic management. That is asking the impossible, and that is what the Bill appears to do.
	I have always thought, and have said at various stages of the Bill's passage, that this is an inadequate means of achieving the desirable end of less congestion, but what is particularly unhelpful is that the clauses the Government seek to reintroduce are genuinely damaging. They will contribute nothing to the Bill's underlying aim, while also proving dangerous to the idea of local democracy. The Government are wrong, and their lordships were right to remove the clauses. I urge the House to agree with their lordships, to disagree with the Government, and to keep these damaging clauses out of the Bill.

John Thurso: When the Bill was published, the Minister was kind enough to arrange for officials to brief me and other Opposition Members on its contents. That was very helpful. One of the issues that I raised then was the whole question of traffic directors. This problem has existed throughout the Bill's passage, and I mentioned it on Second Reading and in Committee. As the Liberal Democrats consider much of the Bill beneficial, I offered the Government an alternative in a spirit of co-operation, but they seem to have been curiously intransigent. In the other place, having tried a variety of options, their lordships decided that, on principle, the clauses should be removed.
	I believe that their lordships made the right decision, but—again in a spirit of wishing to offer the Minister something—I suggest that the Government could table amendments. They could adopt the proposal that I made in Committee—or, to be exact, a workable version of it, as my proposal was not entirely workable—or, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), they could draw up criteria for the intervention. It is difficult to accept draconian powers of intervention with no explanation of what they would consist of and when they would be triggered. I know that the Minister is a reasonable man, and I know that he dislikes Draco. I hope that he will consider my suggestion.
	As I said in Committee, it seems to me that there are only two circumstances in which the Government might wish to intervene. One is when a local authority has simply failed to appoint a traffic director; the other is when a traffic manager has been appointed and fails to deliver to the Government's satisfaction. Surely there is a straightforward remedy in both cases. In the first case, it is simply to insist that a traffic manager be appointed. In the second, it is to reserve to the Secretary of State a power to remove a traffic manager who has been seen to fail, and make another appointment. That simple method of intervention would leave most of the clauses that have gone out, but would retain some power of intervention. As I said on that occasion, I accept that there may be times at which the Government need to intervene, and my proposal would provide a mechanism.
	A very germane point has been made about finance. It is extraordinary that a local authority that must finance a traffic manager and associated requirements through its council tax payers should—if the Government choose to impose a traffic director—also have to pay for the full panoply of staff, offices and all the other accoutrements. That is surely an unnecessary burden to place on local people, particularly when there is nothing they can do at the ballot box.
	I genuinely consider the Minister a reasonable man. Given the maths of this House, I am sure that it will vote with the Government, but I hope that, when this provision goes back to their lordships' House, the Government will seriously consider not forcing them to insist. They could avoid that outcome by tabling amendments that would produce the result that I suggested or that would define the relevant criteria.

Damian Green: In the light of the burst of reasonableness that we are expecting from the Minister, the hon. Gentleman could suggest that he establish some criteria when the Reasons Committee is set up, so that it can judge them. That would be an improvement on the current situation, whereby we are simply being asked to take it on trust that the Government will provide reasonable criteria. They have had many weeks in which to come up with such criteria, and it seems strange that the House is being asked to make a decision without knowing what they are. The Reasons Committee is another means by which the Government could deal with this issue.

John Thurso: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I believe that there is a way forward for the Government that would give them what they require, and which would be acceptable to their lordships. I urge the Minister to demonstrate that burst of reasonableness.

Eric Forth: We are being invited to discuss an unusually wide range of amendments; indeed, I hardly know where to start, but I shall do my best. The general point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)—the relationship between central and local government—is what this is all about. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—we used affectionately to describe his predecessor as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Island; we thought that funny but he never did—used an interesting phrase. He spoke of the satisfaction of the Government with what the local traffic manager is getting up to, but given his party's devotion to devolution, I would have expected him to speak of the satisfaction of the voters. We have traffic problems in my borough of Bromley, and to my simple mind it should properly be for local voters to judge whether their local councillors and officers are dealing adequately with such problems. I doubt whether anybody in Bromley would be very satisfied to learn that the Secretary of State—or even worse, the Mayor of London—was to look after Bromley's traffic. I shall come back to the Mayor in a moment, because sadly, he is mentioned in these provisions and I cannot imagine why.
	The first point that we must confront in considering these provisions is our view as individuals and as a House of Commons of the proper relationship between central and local government.

Greg Knight: Potentially, this issue goes wider still. I represent an area on which, to my misfortune, the Government are seeking to impose regional assemblies. How would the views of regional assemblies be taken into account?

Eric Forth: I do not possess my right hon. Friend's intimate knowledge of the Bill, but my glance through it has so far found no reference to regional authorities of any kind, so I assume, given the Government's enthusiasm for elected regional authorities, that there is no role for them in this matter. Presumably, even regional elected representatives would have no role to play in traffic management; yet again, it is the Secretary of State who will decide on such matters, be it road humps or anything else.
	We are in an absurd position. All the main political parties now pay lip service to the idea of local decision making—devolution, decentralisation, call it what one will—yet the Bill contains a perfect example of central Government's belief that they invariably know what is best for local areas, and so will seek to intervene. We already have central government control over the national motorway network, which is long established. Going several steps further to say that the Secretary of State is so omniscient that he will know what is required authority by authority, street by street, is patently absurd.
	I will not dwell excessively on clauses 16 and 17, except to point out that they are referred to explicitly in clause 20, which means that there is at least an opportunity to touch upon them. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I pointed out what appeared to be a helpful reference to the "expeditious movement of traffic" as a criterion for judging whether the local traffic authority was carrying out its duties satisfactorily. However, the phrase is very subjective and, sadly, there is little or no help in clause 16.
	I looked in vain to see whether clause 17 provided further guidance and came across an interesting phrase. The clause starts by saying:
	"A local traffic authority shall make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for planning and carrying out the action to be taken in performing the network management duty."
	That is the very thing the Secretary of State will use to judge the performance of the local traffic authority.
	Clause 17(4) states:
	"The arrangements must include provision for establishing processes for ensuring (so far as may be reasonably practicable)
	—another subjective judgment—
	"that the authority . . . identify things (including future occurrences) which are causing, or which have the potential to cause, road congestion or other disruption".
	We are now requiring the local traffic authority to have the ability to gaze into a crystal ball and forecast sufficiently accurately what will happen in the future to avoid traffic congestion. I would have thought it demanding enough to deal with existing traffic congestion, but to use as a criterion one's ability to forecast the future gets us into difficult territory.

Damian Green: The situation is even worse than my right hon. Friend supposes. Under the comprehensive spending review, the Government slipped out the fact that they had dropped their target of reducing traffic congestion. One would have expected that; they have failed miserably to reach the target since the 10-year transport plan came out. More to the point, the Government will not even define traffic congestion until July next year. They will spend the next year trying to decide if they know what traffic congestion is. Asking a traffic director to predict how traffic congestion will be reduced when the Government cannot even define it puts an onerous burden on the people they are to appoint.

Eric Forth: I am grateful, but alarmed. Should the Bill receive Royal Assent, there will be at the very least a lacuna, during which nobody will have any idea about these important matters. Having referred to crystal ball gazing and to the anticipation of future occurrences, the Bill goes on to say—with an insouciance of a kind I have rarely seen in legislation—that
	"nothing in this subsection is to be taken to require the identification or consideration of anything appearing to have only an insignificant effect (or potential effect) on the movement of traffic on their road network."
	We are now into multiple subjectivity. We are judging future occurrences that have potential effects that are significant or insignificant. I defy anyone to pick their way through that, given that we are talking about a matter as important as the imposition by central Government of all-powerful traffic gauleiters in local authorities. Even before I get past clause 20, I am thoroughly confused and alarmed.
	I want, however, to try to tease out from the Minister his view of the relationship between the Mayor of London and London authorities. Clause 20(5) states:
	"The Secretary of State shall consult the Mayor before giving an intervention notice to a London authority and, if such notice is given, shall give him a copy of it."
	We all know about the new bear hug in which the Mayor and the Government are engaging and it is wondrous to behold. However, I would have thought that people in London boroughs, whose councillors are properly elected to take local decisions on their behalf, would be more than a little alarmed at the thought of the remote Secretary of State taking their decisions for them.
	I do not want to be too personal about it, but given that the current incumbent Secretary of State also happens simultaneously to be the Secretary of State for Scotland, it is conceivable that he might be spending rather more of his time in Edinburgh than in London. Earlier today, when he was wearing his Secretary of State for Transport hat, he referred to a surface railway line—or he thought he was referring to one—as the Northern line. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is really a tube line.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the right hon. Member some latitude, but I hope that he will now return to directing his comments at the amendments that we are debating.

Eric Forth: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would not dream of disputing anything you say, but we are debating whether clause 20 should be in the Bill, and I am talking about clause 20(5), which explicitly refers to both the Secretary of State and the Mayor, and London authorities. I was talking about the Secretary of State in almost complimentary terms.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we went rather beyond the Secretary of State when we got on to the Northern line.

Eric Forth: That is what we all thought when the Secretary of State said that, too. I am grateful for your endorsement, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will send Hansard to him on Monday.
	The point at issue is a very serious one. We now face the dangerous possibility that the Secretary of State—regardless of who he or she may be or what other jobs he or she may have—will consult the Mayor on a matter that should be the business only of the London authority. That applies whether it is my authority or any of the other London boroughs. The Government suggest that there are now two people with the potential to interfere and intervene on London matters in London boroughs. I find that wholly unacceptable and I would be surprised if any London Member representing a London borough were any happier than me about that. I press the matter no further than that.
	Moving on to clause 21—I want to make progress and there are many clauses to wade through—my eye alights on subsection (3), which states:
	"An intervention order providing for the appointment of a traffic director must (among other things) . . . confer such general powers on the traffic director as the national authority considers appropriate for achieving those objectives."
	So a potential outsider with as yet unspecified but unlimited powers will be imposed on a local authority, subject only to the whim of the Secretary of State. The clause proceeds to hint that the general powers conferred on such a director are to "monitor" and "report"—I might just about be able to go along with that—but then to
	"intervene in activities of the local traffic authority"
	and
	"to carry out functions of the local traffic authority".
	That surely is alarming.
	Moving on rapidly to clause 22—I am picking up speed now, Madam Deputy Speaker, and there will be no legislative congestion here—can the Minister help me? The clause states:
	"Where by virtue of an intervention order a traffic director is to be appointed in relation to a local traffic authority . . . any person . . . may be appointed",
	including
	"the national authority making the order".
	That suggests to me that the Secretary of State could be appointed as the traffic manager. Could that possibly be true? Is the Secretary of State bidding for yet another job? In addition to being Secretary of State for Scotland and Secretary of State for Transport, does he want to be traffic manager for Bromley?
	That strikes me as ambitious, to the say the least. Under the terms of the clause, could he also be the traffic manager for every other authority as well? If so, he would be a busy man. Would his salary rise commensurately? Would he get extra money and work overtime? We need to know. Provisions such as this may look innocuous when they are buried in a Bill as clause 22(1)(a), but they have the potential to be extremely damaging.
	Clause 30 deals with the recovery of costs from local traffic authorities. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford has considered this matter, given his intimate knowledge of the Bill, but the clause states:
	"The appropriate national authority may recover from the local traffic authority such sum or sums as it may consider appropriate."
	That is really scary. It suggests that the Secretary of State, on a whim, can recover any amount of money that he considers appropriate from local authorities and, therefore, from council tax payers. How much further must the Bill go before it wrecks any concept of a proper relationship between central and local government?
	The proposals are truly frightening. The House of Lords is often criticised by the Government as undemocratic and unaccountable, but we must now look to their lordships to defend local democracy and the proper relationship between local government and central Government. The Government repeatedly pay lip service to local decision making and decentralisation, but they are setting out to wreck and undermine the relationship between local government and voters.
	The Bill is appalling and disgraceful. We must oppose it at every turn.

Tony McNulty: I shall deal first with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). There are 35 highway authorities in the London area. The Bill is restricted to looking at, and imposing duties on, highway authorities. Regional assemblies are not highway authorities, so it is clear that they are outside the Bill's scope.
	There are 32 London boroughs, including Bromley. The City of London is another of the 35 highway authorities, as is the Highways Agency, in part, because of its roads network. Finally, there is Transport for London. The relationship between TFL and the London boroughs, after the Greater London Authority Act 1999, is complex. The Mayor is the TFL and GLA representative, and the Bill requires the communication of information to him for that reason alone. However, he must also satisfy the Government in respect of his own network management duty. There is no elaborate conspiracy to Livingstoneise Bromley, or any borough in which people had the misfortune—or were misguided enough—to vote for a party other than the one to which the Mayor now belongs.
	I hesitate to mention that, as the United Kingdom Independence party almost won Bromley in the European elections. I shall not go beyond the scope of the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, and push the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about how he voted in those elections. I shall not ask him whether he voted for his party or for UKIP. I shall not go there.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a fair point about Barnet. The same complexities apply here: TFL has a funding relationship, and other relationships, with Barnet and all the London boroughs, which are not part of the local transport plan process referred to by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). In that process, there is a direct relationship between the Department and every highway authority in England outside London, whereas the London boroughs relate to TFL in respect of funding, and other matters.
	I turn now to the way in which Barnet relates to the Government in respect of its ability to fulfil its network management duty. If a party manifesto promised the wholesale removal of sleeping policemen or street furniture, for example, that would have to be seen to be consistent with the fulfilment of the network management duty. I take the point that this is not about a party of whatever colour elected centrally, imposing by some back-door route its view of what the local highway authority solutions should be to achieving its works management duty. Behind the noise and rhetoric, happily, at least in part, Barnet is not doing what the rhetoric suggests it is doing. I do not think that many sleeping policemen or road humps have been moved. Rather like the hon. Member for Ashford, the rhetoric is a lot noisier than any subsequent action. That explains in part why, to the apparent disgust of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Mayor is mentioned so frequently within the whole document. There are complexities that do not prevail in the rest of the country.
	I do not accept that the network management duty and the clauses that we seek to restore are undemocratic, unclear, impractical, unnecessary or unaccountable in part, which was the broad gist of what the hon. Gentleman said. Neither, given all the elements of the Bill, including those that we seek to restore, do I consider it to be centralising control, arbitrary or anything else that he said. It is not undemocratic because we set out clearly what the network management duty should be. We will subsequently flesh that out with criteria and practicalities in guidance. We will make clear in guidance after full consultation what steps need to be taken.
	I know that many find it unsatisfactory, as I do to some extent, when I describe the Bill, as I have done on many occasions during its passage, as like a Christmas tree. Broad, enabling powers are taken in the Bill, around which a whole series of regulations, criteria and guidance will be hung subsequently. In the totality of the Bill there will be guidance on the techniques of securing the national management network duty, on intervention, on what the traffic director may and may not do, on making intervention orders and notices, on what the network's duty will be and on a range of other areas. It may be unsatisfactory that all those are not clearly and explicitly in the Bill, but I assure hon. Members that there will be substantive consultation as each of those sets of guidance and regulations comes to fruition.
	There is also the backstop. Every time there is an apparent need for intervention, there will be a separate intervention order for that specific authority, which can be discussed in the House, should it be prayed against on the negative resolution procedure via a statutory instrument. A series of belts and braces have been established. I do not think in the main that all should appear in the Bill. It is certainly not the norm in legislation. It has not been the norm in the past and I could point to many Acts since 1979 that are of the same order as this Bill, where the substantive work is done in regulation in consultation or subsequently.
	This is not supposed to replace local transport plans, nor does it make them redundant. The network management's duty is entirely consistent with LTPs outside London. The monitoring, which is part of the local transport process, can and probably will be part of the assessment process for the criteria on achieving the network management duty. Such issues are just the kind of matters that we are discussing with local government and others in developing the criteria.
	The half point made by the hon. Gentleman that was valid was that it clearly would be foolish to impose a network management duty, and seek to produce criteria and measurements for that duty, as if the whole local transport plan process did not exist. Of course, the two would need to be intermeshed, and that is what will happen.
	It is not right to say that there would be no consideration of the costs of an intervention. Clause 30 allows the recovery of costs associated with appointing a traffic director, but it does not require the recovery of those costs. The Secretary of State might decide that it would be far more efficient for the authority to use those resources to improve its performance. The burden is not as explicit as some would suggest. Neither is it arbitrary. The intervention powers are not arbitrary or unfettered. Any decision must be consistent with the principles outlined in the guidance in what was clause 27—which we seek to restore—and would need to stand up to scrutiny. Those criteria will be set out in an order and can be discussed. They are being developed with stakeholders—I apologise for using that word, and perhaps I should say interested parties—including the Local Government Association, and will be subject to public consultation.
	We want the process to be as transparent as possible. The guidance and criteria will overcome many of the difficulties that hon. Members have suggested. The protocol is in place. It is wrong to suggest that the power is brand new and a first in the relationship between central and local government. The protocol contains a long list of existing service-specific powers for statutory intervention related to failure, including on housing, environment, planning, education, health, and even libraries and museums. That demonstrates that these powers are not unusual. It is a widely accepted concept that appropriate national authorities should intervene if an authority fails in its duty. The House is not being asked to take the criteria on trust. As I have said, they can be considered in great detail by both Houses.
	The problem with the amendments suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) in Committee was that they personalised the issue around the traffic manager. We have deliberately abstracted the notion of traffic manager. In one way, we could care less who the traffic manager is and where they stand in the structures of the local authority. The failure of the traffic manager is not the issue. The failure would be of the authority to fulfil its collective and corporate network management duty.
	I repeated frequently in Committee that we see intervention as a last resort. I accept that there are those—such as the LGA—who would not seek to push the ability of central Government to intervene any further than it goes now, as a matter of principle. I accept that, but I congratulate the LGA because—despite that principle—it has discussed the criteria and other elements with us at length. We envisage a series of discussions—and, perhaps, mentoring by other highway authorities that are in a better position to address the failure—as well as other measures, some of which will be contained in the guidance and some that will be agreed with local government.
	I have also said that notice will be given of intervention, so that even at such a late stage in the process the difficulties in a highway authority may be addressed. I said on Second Reading, and I repeat today—not least for the benefit of those in the other place who will consider this issue subsequently—that I would see intervention, as outlined in the Bill, as a collective failure of central and local government. Long before intervention was necessary, matters should have been resolved by all three parties—the potentially failing local authority, local government and the Government. However, if we are to impose a statutory network management duty on local authorities, we need, as a long, long backstop—as I have assured the House—the ability to intervene and correct things if an authority fails in that duty, as neither the local community or the Government would want such a situation to prevail.
	On Second Reading, it was suggested that I was simply saying, "Trust me". I am not saying that. I am saying that one of the prerequisites of imposing such a statutory duty on local authorities is that the whole array—the panoply—of powers is in place, so that, ultimately, if there were a failure in that duty the responsibility would return to the Government, who would secure the situation or ensure that the local authority could recover and return to a position where it could fulfil its duty. The intervention powers are thus part and parcel of the Bill, by imposing that network management duty in the first place.
	I shall be more than happy to speak to Opposition Members from both parties, or their counterparts in the other place, about the criteria, the guidance and the other elements, where much work has already been done; and to give them reassurance about any aspect of the process—the intervention notice, the orders, the criteria for the network management duty—to allay any fears that I have been unable to set aside today. However, for the integrity of the Bill and in order for the Government to secure what we want in part 2, we feel that we must disagree with the Lords. The provisions need to be restored and in the spirit of eminent reasonableness that I am pursuing, I ask the House to endorse that approach and to disagree, in the nicest possible way, with the Lords on these amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 78.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 11 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 15 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 1.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 17, 18, 35, 36, 43, 45 to 50, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66, 67, 70, 77, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99 to 101, 105, 106 and 109.

David Jamieson: The expert way in which you read out the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, makes them sound impressive, but they are, in fact, all drafting amendments and the Government agree with them.

Greg Knight: I do not necessarily oppose the amendments, but want some clarification.
	Amendment No. 36 deletes clause 40(2). Why does the Minister think that that is the right thing to do? Amendments Nos. 43 and 45 are similar but not identical. They relate to the resurfacing notice. Amendment No. 43 removes "serve" and inserts "give", so a street authority may give a resurfacing notice rather than serve one. Amendment No. 45 removes "serve with" and inserts "given".
	Every lawyer knows that "serve" has a specific meaning. If someone is served a writ as part of legal proceedings, he has to be physically touched with it. It does not matter what he then does with it. He could rip it up. I have dealt with cases in which a young articled clerk has gone to serve a writ on someone. He has touched the individual with it, has been chased down the drive and the writ has been thrown into the back into the articled clerk's car. That does not matter because the individual has still been served. In my days as an articled clerk, I spent many a weekend trying to earn a few extra pounds from my employer by serving writs on less than salubrious characters who had come into conflict with my firm's clients.
	Does the replacement of "serve" with "give" imply that the Government are trying to achieve something less than a personal service, perhaps by placing an advert in a magazine or The London Gazette? Alternatively, does giving the notice simply mean telling a junior employee who happens to be on site about it, rather than issuing an official notice to the contractor, sent to that contractor's registered office? If there is a lessening of the test of service, why is that appropriate? Lords amendment No. 59 removes the term "penalty charge". Again, will the Minister say why that is an appropriate course of action?
	Lords Amendment No. 70 seeks to delete from the Bill the word "guidance" and to insert the word "guidelines". I wondered what the difference was between those two words, and to refresh my memory I consulted the "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary", which states that guidance is
	"the action of guiding; leadership, direction",
	whereas a guideline is a
	"directing or standardising principle, laid down as a guide to procedure or policy".
	Clearly, the most appropriate word to use in the Bill is "guidelines". The Government spend a lot of money on parliamentary draftsmen who, I suspect, certainly get paid more than a Member of Parliament and perhaps more than the Minister. Why is this change being made at this late stage? It seems, on the face of it, to involve sloppy drafting, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

David Jamieson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. His first question was on the minor technical amendments relating to the fixed penalty notice in the Bill. Lords Amendment No. 35 corrects an error in clause 40. The Bill incorrectly states that schedule 4B
	"makes provision about fixed penalties for fixed penalty notices",
	but it should read "for fixed penalty offences". Lords Amendment No. 36 also amends clause 40. It is unnecessary to refer to the power to prescribe notices in relation to fixed penalties under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, because the power is already implicit in the existing provision in section 97 of the Act. The provision should therefore be deleted.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between serving notices and giving them. I believe that their lordships probably got more exercised about this than we did. The difficulty was that both terms had been used in the Bill. I am advised that, in legal terms, they are one and the same thing. These amendments are therefore tidying amendments to ensure that we use the same terminology throughout. Had we not put this minor matter right, there could have been some confusion about the two terms, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly suggested. However, they mean the same thing, so this is just a matter of consistency in the Bill.
	I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made a tour into our excellent Library—we heard earlier about our chief librarian, who is retiring, and about the excellent service that she provides—to look at the "Oxford English Dictionary", albeit the shorter version. He rightly said that the term "guidelines" more accurately described the directing role of the appropriate national authority. "Guidance", the term that was previously used, suggests a broader discretion than we had intended.
	This is therefore a group of fairly minor but nevertheless important amendments, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his fastidiousness in having looked through them so carefully and asking questions about some of them.

Greg Knight: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I say that the Minister has satisfied us on all the matters that we have raised? I am most grateful to him for his comprehensive reply, and we shall not seek to divide the House on any of the amendments which may, by all means, be put together.
	Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 16

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 34.

Tony McNulty: These are all amendments to the permit powers that were alluded to earlier when we were discussing the Ways and Means resolution. Lords amendment No. 16 clarifies that the power for regulations to provide for the review or variation of permits can also cover applications for variations to a permit—for example, where a person wishes to apply for conditions attached to a permit to be varied.
	Lords amendments Nos. 19 and 22 clarify that the powers for an order to modify or disapply primary or secondary legislation are limited to the extent allowed for by permit regulations, and they were tabled in response to the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 23 delete the existing powers in the Bill covering the variation and revocation of permit schemes operated by local and national authorities respectively, and Lords amendment No. 21 is consequential on Lords amendment No. 23. Lords amendment No. 24 replaces those deleted powers with a new clause, which makes it clear that schemes may be revoked or varied by order and that a single order can apply to more than one scheme. It also provides that an order can also make specific provision to disapply and modify primary and secondary legislation, provided that that is in accordance with permit regulations.
	Lords amendment No. 25 allows for wide provision in regulations for the determination of disputes in relation to permits. Regulations will allow for the facilitation of dispute resolution and any system of appeal for permits thought necessary. Regulations could also provide for the appointment of people to hear disputes, and the scope could extend to systems such as adjudication and mediation. Lords amendment No. 26 makes it clear that if regulations provide for adjudication, then the consent of the Lord Chancellor would be required to the making of the regulations or the appointment of persons.
	Lords amendment No. 27 allows permit regulations to make provision for permit offences to be fixed penalty offences. The offences themselves will be defined in permit regulations. Lords amendment No. 31 is consequential and provides a definition of "fixed penalty notice".
	Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 30 make further provision for the payment of permit fees. They set out the cases in which regulations can make provision for the charging of a fee, and they also provide that the national authority should try to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, that fees payable in connection with permit schemes do not exceed costs as may be prescribed. Those amendments were referred to earlier in the Ways and Means resolution.
	Lords amendment No. 30 enables regulations to provide for the keeping of accounts. Lords amendment No. 32 allows for permit regulations or a permit order to provide for regional variations, for instance, to apply different arrangements for permit schemes in London as against the rest of the country.
	Lords amendment No. 33 provides that the first set of permit regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution. Lords amendment No. 34 is consequential on that, and amends clause 38(4) to make it clear that subsequent regulations would revert to the negative procedure. These amendments were also tabled in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report.
	Given that we have already discussed the core elements of the amendments in the Ways and Means resolution, I urge the House to support the amendments.

Christopher Chope: As the Minister said, we have debated the principles. The group of 16 Lords amendments is a welcome improvement, but we still have reservations and wish that the Government had been able to go further to meet our concerns about the stealth tax that effectively lies behind the permit scheme.
	If it were not for the constraints of time, we could spend longer discussing the detail. By my calculation, the other place spent 25 hours and 45 minutes discussing the Bill, during which time 109 amendments were tabled. With their guillotine motion, the Government have allowed us only two and a half hours to consider all those amendments, which is a mean approach. We must try to discuss as much as possible, so the time that we can spend discussing this group of amendments is inevitably restricted.
	May I ask the Minister about the one-sidedness of the fixed penalty notices, because there is still an issue about the fact that the fixed penalty notices will apply to utilities only, and not to highway authorities, although the highway authorities themselves, through the works that they carry out, may cause as much, if not more, inconvenience to the motoring public?
	The National Joint Utilities Group takes the view that this is a one-sided, arbitrary fixed penalty regime that does nothing whatsoever to ensure that there is any incentive for highways authorities carrying out works to do so in a reasonable time and with a minimum amount of disruption to members of the public. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister is listening to the concerns expressed by the National Joint Utilities Group, but I hope that he will be able to explain exactly how the travelling public can be assured that when the highways authorities carry out roadworks they will not be able, with impunity, to block the highway by sticking their roadworks there for unreasonable lengths of time. If the Government believe that it is necessary to have a penalty regime, with fixed penalties that may rise to as much as £350, for utilities, why do they not believe that it is necessary for the highways authorities? I hope that the Minister will be able to allay remaining concerns on that matter.
	I hope that the Minister will think again about the overall burden of cost involved in these permit schemes. In correspondence with my noble Friend Viscount Astor, the Minister in the other place said that he did not believe that it would be sensible to tie the costs down as narrowly as we wished. I should have thought that it was in everybody's interests that the costs of permit schemes and the costs of getting permits should be tied down as tightly as possible. That is why we regret that the Government have not gone further.

John Redwood: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He is letting the Government off very lightly, although I realise that that is because we are so short of time that we cannot discuss this properly and divide on it if we hope to deal with the other important matters before us.
	I should have thought that the Minister would want to table rather more amendments to the permit scheme provisions, because we live in remarkable times. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that there is too much waste and bureaucracy and too many stealth taxes, yet here we see the Department for Transport going ahead as if the new doctrine had not come in. It is busily legislating for a very expensive stealth tax on the private sector, but it is not prepared to be fair-minded by recognising that the public sector is often the cause of delays, and is exempting it from the charge.
	These clauses, even when amended as suggested by the Minister, will leave a bureaucratic, expensive and lopsided system. If the Minister knows what is good for him in his future career, he should listen rather more carefully to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and identify this scheme as a new example of the waste, intervention, bureaucracy and stealth taxing that we heard this week was no longer on the agenda.

Tony McNulty: If I understood the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly, he wants 25 hours to discuss 19 amendments that everyone agrees with. That seems obtuse, to say the least. He did not mention all the time that we spent on Second Reading and in Committee—it was a good-natured Committee stage—and subsequently on Report and Third Reading.
	Broadly speaking, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. Nor, interestingly, does the other place, where all these amendments were ultimately secured without dissent. The first set of regulations on permit schemes will be subject to the affirmative order. I do not accept that the proposals are one-sided. We debated that extensively in Committee. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he wants a fixed penalty notice regime whereby the highways authority imposes on itself fixed penalty notices if it transgresses the permit system that it will be afforded the ability to impose on others. One part of the highways authority will therefore impose a fixed penalty regime on another part, and will doubtless take it to court if the notices are not paid. One part would then sue another for recovery of costs and other expenses stemming from the regime if they are not forthcoming. In Committee, we made it clear that we accepted—I am mimicking the hon. Member for Christchurch in case people did not notice rather than the National Joint Utilities Group or any other learned body that partook in our discussions—that it is a network management duty to ensure that highways authorities discharge their functions on roadworks and streetworks properly and respect the spirit of the Bill.
	Network management duties are, quite rightly, not imposed on private contractors and utility groups, but are a function of the local highways authority which, as the relevant public body, will be charged with the efficient and expeditious carrying-out of streetworks. We can set hares running, but it will not be in any highways authority's interest to start digging a hole in the road and leave it there for two or three months, as hon. Gentlemen suggested, doing nothing. It is foolish to suggest that the authorities would act with impunity because they are not charged for permits and are not fined—the Opposition have flogged that point to death. The utility groups accept that balance will prevail, and are represented on a series of working groups that will be set up according to regulations and guidance in the Bill.
	I shall not even bother to grace the tosh about stealth taxes with a reply. Not only have the Opposition fabricated unrealistic and unnecessary rhetoric to the point of ridicule but their criticisms have become a tiresome standing joke. The amendments were agreed by the House of Lords without dissent and, as the hon. Member for Christchurch said, they tidy up the permits system in the Bill and deal with many of the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I therefore hope that they will be warmly welcomed as a way of tidying up a complex part of the Bill. All the Lords amendments improve the clarity of the Bill, so we are happy to accept them. They should have been welcomed by the Opposition, so that we could debate the matters of substance in the Opposition amendments in the two following groups. The amendments in the current group, however, are worth while and improve the permit scheme. The House of Lords fully endorses them, and I urge the Commons to do so as well.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 36 agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privileges in respect of Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
	Lords amendment: No. 37.

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following: Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 42, 44 and 51; Lords amendment No. 52 and amendment (a) thereto; Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 56, 93, and 96 to 98.

Tony McNulty: Regulations will make provision for appeals from utilities against an authority that has given a direction about the placing of apparatus. Lords amendment No. 37 makes it clear that regulations may also make provision about the person who may determine any such appeals.
	Lords amendment No. 38 makes some useful changes to the giving of notices by undertakers under sections 54 and 55 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. Among other things, there will be a requirement that if the notice of the starting date of works becomes invalid under section 55, an undertaker must provide a further notice containing such information as prescribed. Failure to do so will be an offence. Lords amendment No. 93 adds this offence, as a consequence, to the list of possible fixed penalties.
	Under the 1991 Act, if an authority wishes to restrict street works after substantial roadworks it must notify relevant persons at least three months before the substantial roadworks start. Lords amendment No. 39 provides for flexibility for regulations to prescribe the period instead. Lords amendment No. 40 provides that regulations may also prescribe certain descriptions of persons who must be notified of the restriction.
	Lords amendment No. 41 amends clause 50, which amends several provisions in the 1991 Act. Under the Act, certain actions are required when an undertaker sends a section 55 notice. The amendments mean that those actions are also required when the undertaker sends a notice under schedule 3A in relation to works to be carried out before substantial street works. Lords amendment No. 98 deletes the provisions in schedule 3A, which allow for cases where overrun charges are applied to work carried out before the restriction. Those provisions are no longer needed due to amendment No. 41.
	Lords amendment No. 96 widens the existing power in the Bill to prescribe the notification requirements in relation to restrictions on further works under the new schedule 3A provisions. Regulations could prescribe the form of such notification and the information that must be contained. Lords amendment No. 97 clarifies which works are exempt from notification arrangements set out under section 55 of the 1991 Act in relation to schedule 3A.
	Lords amendments Nos. 42, 44 and 51 to 55 apply to clauses 53 to 55 of the Bill. Those clauses insert new sections into the 1991 Act, which provide the basis for regulations to enable street authorities to require undertakers to resurface a street, or part of a street, or contribute to the cost of that resurfacing.

Brian White: Lords amendment No. 52 refers to
	"whether or not regulations . . . have been made".
	The industry is concerned that that could be several years later, and that it could be faced with not knowing what the Bill will be. Will the Minister assure the House that the times that that clause is brought into effect and that the regulations come into effect will not be several years apart?

Tony McNulty: Certainly, I give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is not the plan in terms of the timing. I take those concerns seriously, and I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail about timing as and when the time lines are more ready than at present.
	Lords amendment No. 42 clarifies that undertakers can be subject to the resurfacing requirements where an authority has issued a notice under section 58A of the 1991 Act indicating its intention to place a restriction on works after substantial street works. That would apply if the undertaker had given notice of its intention to carry out works in the part of the road where the restriction will apply. It would also apply where the undertaker has given the usual section 54 or 55 notices.
	Lords amendments Nos. 44 and 52 provide that only works carried out after commencement of these clauses could carry a liability for an undertaker, although, depending on the details in the regulations, the scope may be extended to works carried out before any regulations are made.
	Lords amendments Nos. 51, 53, 54 and 55 provide for regulations to ensure that all the undertakers are aware of their liability, and to establish a basis for apportioning the costs between the parties that leads broadly to the same result, whoever carries out the resurfacing works. Those Lords amendments also provide for regulations to include safeguards to cover insolvency of undertakers, and to deal with the interaction of the resurfacing powers with other duties in the 1991 Act, such as reinstatements under section 70 and long-term damage under section 78, in ways that avoid unnecessary works and unreasonable costs for utilities.
	Lords amendment No. 56 widens the regulation-making powers of the Secretary of State to allow for a more targeted regime for inspections of the quality of undertakers' work, to enable more inspections of the poorest performers. Regulations would allow disputes to be settled by arbitration.
	As I said at the beginning, we agree with all those amendments from the other place. They improve matters, for which we are grateful. I commend the Lords amendments to the House.

Christopher Chope: I understood the Minister to say in response to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) that he would accept my amendment (a). I hope he will confirm that. As has been said by the hon. Gentleman and many others, we cannot have retrospection.
	If the Bill were enacted later this month, a commencement order were introduced and the resurfacing clauses became active soon afterwards, but the regulations were not made until, say, July 2010, under the present rules highway authorities would be able to request resurfacing, or a contribution towards the cost, dating back to the time of the order. The retrospection could amount to five or six years, or perhaps even longer. That would cause utilities both regulatory and balance-sheet uncertainty. They would be forced to put aside money for charges that might or might not materialise at some point in the future. Regulators would not accept that such provision would be made until regulations were imminent.
	In the other place Lord Davies, the Minister, assured everyone that the Government did not want to make it difficult for the utility companies to operate. If the Government do not accept the amendment, it will indeed be very difficult for utility operators to cope, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East. I hope the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if it becomes apparent that the Minister will not accept the amendment—although the tone of the Minister's response to the hon. Gentleman implied that he was going to.

John Redwood: During the Minister's rather garbled and hurried presentation, did my hon. Friend catch his statement that he welcomed an increase in retrospection in one of the amendments because he thought there could be circumstances in which people should have to pay even if the work had begun before the regulations were made?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend has picked up a detail that I had not cottoned on to. I hope he will have a chance to go into it further during this debate, even though it is short.
	Lords amendment No. 56 deals with inspection fees. The Government have introduced an element of variability related to the track record of the company carrying out the work that is the subject of inspection. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the principle, but the only examples given by the Minister in the other place and in correspondence are those in which the fees would be higher. The amount of work to be inspected would increase in the case of a poor record. We need to ensure that in the case of a good record, the burden of inspection is reduced. That underlines the Opposition's continual plea for minimum regulatory intervention in the private sector.
	I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the variability will be both upward and downward. I hope he will be able to tell us that if a utility operator delivers high-quality work and an inspection shows no need for further work, the burden of inspection will be reduced. I hope he can also assure us that when inspections are paid for, that means that they are actually carried out. It has come to my notice that in Dorset, in certain circumstances, utilities pay for inspections that are then not carried out by the inspection authority. That is basically another stealth tax.

John Thurso: Retrospective charging, to which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred, is an issue that concerns me as well, particularly given that it will put a much larger burden on many plc utilities' balance sheets than the Government perhaps appreciate. I chair the audit committee of a plc—it is not, I should hasten to add, a utility company—so I know of the problems that auditors mention when they ask how one is going to account for such liabilities in the balance sheet. I urge the Minister to give some comfort to the utilities in this respect.
	On inspection fees, the basic principle of being able to vary fees to punish those who are bad and, more importantly, to reward those who are good must be a good one, so I broadly support proposed new clause 56. But in the light of the correspondence that has been referred to, it appears that lots of stick and very little carrot will be used. An assurance from the Minister that good use will also be made of the lighter touch of the carrot would be extremely helpful.

John Redwood: I support amendment (a), which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), and I hope that we will have an opportunity to do something about it. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) is right to be concerned about this issue. This group of amendments, which the Government hope to nod through, give further powers to Ministers that I am not sure they deserve, and they offer further threats to businesses operating in this area. There could be an added element of retrospection, as the Minister said, and there will definitely be variable charges and fees of a kind that could be quite damaging; that will make the private sector's life much more difficult.
	This is another example of a well-intentioned Bill—which is trying to do something about the chronic congestion that this Government's transport policy has created—miscarrying and turning into a traditional Labour Government Bill that attacks the private utilities, invents very complicated bureaucracy and creates extra expense. So I hope that we will at least have an opportunity to do something about the very important point made in amendment (a), even if the Opposition are none the less going to go along with the other, rather dubious, complicated and bureaucratic amendments.

Tony McNulty: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I agreed broadly with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), but I certainly did not agree with what is a flawed amendment that does only half the job that it purports to do. On the assurance that I gave to my hon. Friend and what I subsequently put to him in writing, it is not in the interests of the Government or of anyone else for a massive and significant delay to occur between the commencement order and the subsequent regulations. In any event, this flawed amendment does not overcome the problem, because it deals with only one of the two references that are made to such matters. But although we do not accept amendment (a), I do accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
	The regulations can allow for lower inspection fees as well as higher ones, and as with other aspects of the Bill, that will be a matter for discussion with the people most directly affected. It is true that the provision allows work undertaken between the commencement order and the subsequent regulations to carry a liability, but I hope that the reassurances that I have given to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East deal with that issue. If one makes it clear that a particular system will prevail, and if there is some delay before it prevails, that is not retrospectivity. If we make clear that we will come in and minimise, as much as we can, the gap between the commencement order and the regulations, and if we then speak to the very people affected by the regulations, we will see that the characterisation of the regime by Opposition Members is a complete nonsense.

John Redwood: That is grossly unfair. The Minister is saying that these companies may have to pay a charge under a regulation that has not been made. How are they expected to know the form and detail of the regulation from the vague statements of the Minister? They must not be imposed upon in this way until they know in detail what the regulatory framework will be.

Tony McNulty: They will know the regulatory framework. They may not know the detail of the regulations, but I have assured my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East that the gap between any commencement order for this part of the Bill and subsequent regulations will be as short as possible. That is a practicality and no more; to characterise it as bashing utilities, attacking people and seeking to impede good business is, I repeat, an abject nonsense, given that the very first thing we will do is to sit down with the utilities and the businesses most directly affected to discuss what regulations should prevail. We do not accept amendment (a) but I commend all the other amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 38 to 51 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 30, line 4, after "has," insert
	"after the commencement of this section (whether or not regulations under it have been made) and".
	Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment: (a), in line 2, leave out
	'(whether or not regulations under it have been made)'.—[Mr. Chope.]

The House divided: Ayes 61, Noes 186.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Lords amendment No. 52 agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 53 to 57 agreed to, the Commons being willing to waive their privileges in respect of Lords amendment No. 56.
	Lords amendment: No. 58

Tony McNulty: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will consider Lords amendments Nos. 61, 62, 65, 68, 69 and 102.

Tony McNulty: Lords amendments Nos. 58, 61 and 102 address a problem with an overlap between powers for fixed penalty notices in the Bill and in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. These overlapping offences relate to the placing of skips and scaffolding under the Highways Act 1980 on the highway. The amendments provide flexibility to deal with the possible problem of having two separate regimes for the same offences. They also deal with the potential problem that the amounts of the overlapping penalties in London could be different from those set outside London, so there is a power to set different rates for different areas in England and Wales, including within and outside London.
	Clauses 63 to 66 provide powers for different charging regimes for the occupation of the highway by skips, scaffolding and building materials. These charges could be based on either the occupation overrunning agreed deadlines or the entire period of occupation—lane rental, as it is commonly known.
	Lords amendments Nos. 62, 65, 68 and 69 together enable regulations to make provision so that where a series of skips, scaffolding or materials are placed one after the other, they may be treated as constituting a single occupation for the purposes of calculating how long they have been in place and thus what charge has to be paid.
	Lords amendment No. 62 inserts new subsections 17A and 17B into section 140A of the Highways Act 1980. This enables regulations to provide that the series of deposits of skips may be treated as a single one. Lords amendment No. 65 carries that provision across so that the same arrangements apply to lane rental charging schemes covering skips. Lords amendment No. 68 does the same in relation to overrun charging for scaffolding and building materials. Finally, Lords amendment No. 69 applies the provision to lane rental schemes for scaffolding and building materials.
	Given that all those amendments were agreed in the House of Lords, I urge the House to support them. They satisfactorily fill the gaps in the original Bill. I commend the amendments in all their glory on skips, scaffolds and building materials to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 59 to 70 agreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 71.

David Jamieson: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 72 and amendment (a) thereto, 73 to 76, 78 to 90, 103, 104, 107 and 108.

David Jamieson: Among other things, the amendments fulfil the commitment that we made on Report to provide for publication of guidance to local authorities on the exercise of their civil enforcement duties. I recall that the Opposition made this suggestion in Committee and we, rightly, acceded to their request, although afterwards hon. Members accused us of doing a U-turn. Nevertheless, the Lords have put all that right.
	Lords amendments Nos. 71 to 74 amend clause 76, so that a vehicle cannot be immobilised for contravening the conditions of use of a paid-for parking bay until a period of 15 minutes has elapsed from the time that a penalty charge notice for the contravention was issued. They ensure that a vehicle cannot be clamped while the driver goes off to look for change for the machine to pay for parking. They preserve the existing 15-minute grace period against being clamped for overstaying the time paid for.
	Lords amendment No. 75 amends clause 77 to enable regulations to be made providing that mitigating circumstances are a ground for appeal to an adjudicator against the imposition of a penalty charge and that, on such an appeal, the adjudicator's function is to decide whether or not to refer the matter back to the enforcement authority for reconsideration. That would effectively give adjudicators a supervisory role over the way in which enforcing authorities exercise their discretion in cases where there are mitigating circumstances.
	Lords amendment No. 76 is a minor operational amendment to clause 77. It provides for enforcing authorities to report to the appropriate national authority rather than the Lord Chancellor on the discharge by adjudicators of their functions. That is in line with the current arrangements under section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
	Lords amendments Nos. 78 to 87 serve to improve clause 83. They extend the prohibition on parking in a special enforcement area to cases where a footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to assist cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway. The prohibition on parking will now also apply where the level of the carriageway has been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge to assist pedestrians and cyclists. Most significantly, the prohibition will now apply to special enforcement areas both inside and outside London.
	Lords amendment No. 88 inserts a new clause enabling the appropriate national authority to publish guidance to local authorities on any matters relating to their functions in connection with the civil enforcement of traffic contraventions. Authorities will be required to have regard to this statutory guidance. Inclusion of the new clause on guidance fulfils a commitment that we gave on Report in the Commons.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this amendment. Can he assure us that it will be implemented quickly? Injustices are perpetrated every day and millions of drivers are suffering—

Bob Russell: Millions?

Christopher Chope: Yes, millions of drivers are suffering persecution at the hands of wardens. We need the code of guidance soon.

David Jamieson: Earlier this afternoon, your predecessor in the Chair asked us to be moderate and temperate in our language, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Talk of "millions" and "persecution" does not fall into that category. The hon. Gentleman is guilty of hyperbole, but that is not unusual for him. I assume that the Bill will receive Royal Assent shortly, and we will bring in the measures as soon as is practicable.
	Lords amendments Nos. 89 and 90 to clause 85 serve to implement a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor on representations and appeals would be subject to parliamentary approval under the affirmative procedure. We are happy to accept that recommendation.
	Lords amendments Nos. 103 and 104 add six additional signs to be subject to civil enforcement to the table at paragraph 9 of schedule 7 to the Bill. Five of those are concerned with enforcement of cycle lanes and cycle tracks. The other will enable civil enforcement of bus prohibitions.
	Lords amendments Nos. 107 and 108 serve to give effect to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of the House of Lords that guidance by the appropriate national authority on the levels of penalty charges to be set by enforcing authorities outside London should be included in an order.

Greg Knight: I urge the Minister and the House to accept amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 72. That amendment, as the Minister has said, would allow the affixing of an immobilisation device if a motorist overstayed by 15 minutes the time for which he had paid on a parking meter. Although that is a small protection, many of us feel that the imposition of an £80 ticket is of itself a sufficient penalty, so is it fair and reasonable for a motorist who overstays by a short time to find that the vehicle is immobilised and a further fee is payable before he can drive his car away?
	On criminal matters, many of us are reassured because the police have the rules of justice and evidence instilled in them. However, we are less happy about traffic wardens enforcing civil penalties because they do not have the same thorough training as the police and some people would say that they are not of the same calibre as police officers. Indeed, they are under pressure to raise money. As we pointed out earlier, a report in one London local newspaper stated:
	"Traffic warden boss says he hates drivers . . . An APCOA boss in charge of training Camden's traffic wardens has admitted he hates motorists—saying they deserve parking tickets because they are lazy. Citing controversial new government proposals which could beef up wardens' duties"—
	referring to the Bill—
	"he added, 'We will now get the power and respect we deserve'. His comments were made to an undercover Ham & High reporter at a job interview for prospective wardens in Kentish Town."
	The article also points out that Camden council
	"rakes in £23 million a year from parking, clamping fines"
	and the money it raises from meters.
	Should a pensioner collecting a prescription for his invalid wife, who puts his money in the parking meter but is delayed both at the doctor's and at the chemist and comes back 16 minutes late, have his vehicle immobilised? Is that fair? Is that justice? We do not think so. Nor do we think that the modest relaxation to one hour proposed in our amendment would undermine the rule of law. Parking fines in this country are already among the highest in the world, so I hope that the Minister will accept our amendment.

David Jamieson: Lords amendments Nos. 71 to 74 came about as a result of a constructive debate in the other place about when immobilisation was an appropriate deterrent measure against unlawful parking. In tabling his amendment to Lords amendment No. 72, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) seems to be going against what his noble Friend was saying in the other place only days ago. As he knows, we tabled the amendment to deal with the specific concerns raised by the Conservative spokesman, Viscount Astor, who thanked us for doing so. He saw the amendment as beneficial and supported it. The period was changed from 15 minutes after the vehicle was over its time to 15 minutes after the ticket had been put on it.
	When the right hon. Gentleman was in the Library looking at the shorter version of the "Oxford English Dictionary" he must have pulled out a copy of Dickens at the same time, because in true Oliver Twist fashion he now wants more, but I am afraid that he will not get it. Under the present provisions of section 70 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, a vehicle that has overstayed in a parking bay may not be immobilised until 15 minutes have elapsed after the end of the period paid for parking, but the amendment makes immobilisation possible only from 15 minutes after the penalty charge has been given.

Greg Knight: The Minister knows that, under our procedures, we cannot vote on our amendment if he is still talking at 6 o'clock. Will he conclude his remarks so that we can test the mood of the House?

David Jamieson: The right hon. Gentleman has made his remarks and I shall use as much time as necessary to complete the discussion. However, I conclude my remarks by saying that we made a perfectly sensible amendment, with which their lordships agreed and I am only surprised that the official Opposition should disagree with their party in the Lords. If that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman in considering the matter, so be it.
	We have had extremely good debates on all these issues. We covered a wide range of issues, and we have had good time to consider them—
	It being Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]
	Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 109 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put,
	That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 4 to 10 and 12 to 15; Mr. Christopher Chope, Ms Anne Coffey, Mr. Tony McNulty, Gillian Merron and John Thurso to be members of the Committee; Mr. Tony McNulty to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee; Committee to withdraw immediately.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House divided: Ayes 181, Noes 45.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know how anxious I always am to help the House authorities, so it may interest those responsible for such matters to know that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) snuck into the No Lobby as the Doors were about to be locked and took the selection lists. I think she thought that they related to today's amendments and took them to be recycled. Sadly, she took tomorrow's selection lists, so they are now not available to Members in the No Lobby. I hope that you can put that right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I note the hon. Gentleman's point and we will see what we can do to rectify the matter as soon as possible.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on the seven motions.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the draft Anti-social Behaviour (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
	That the draft Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and their Member States, and the Republic of Croatia) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

Road Traffic

That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

Broadcasting

That the draft Community Radio Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (England and Wales) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.
	That the draft Representation of the People (Form of Canvass) (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That, at the sittings on Monday 19th, Tuesday 20th, Wednesday 21st and Thursday 22nd July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received, until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported, and until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Paul Clark.]

Eric Forth: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	BUPA Seven

John Horam: I wish to present a petition on behalf of Eileen Chubb of the BUPA seven and others. BUPA seven is composed of former care workers who spoke out against elder abuse in a care home in Bromley.
	The petition states:
	That silence is a major contributory factor in elder abuse in care homes and that unless whistleblowers are fully protected, the silence will continue, along with the suffering of those who are unable to speak out for themselves. The Petitioners further declare that the case of the "BUPA Seven" has raised real concerns that the Public Interest Disclosure Act is failing to protect those who speak out in defence of the legitimate interests of others. Amongst these failings is the fact that if the employer contests disclosures then the whistleblower is left in a situation where the only court that can hear the cases has no jurisdiction to hear criminal evidence. The Petitioners further declare that the verdict in the case of the "BUPA Seven" will serve to encourage others not to report cases of abuse, and they note the conclusion of the Health Committee in its Report on Elder Abuse that further measures to make staff aware of their responsibility to report abuse, and to allow them to do this in a confidential manner, may be needed.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to hold a full public inquiry into the case of the "BUPA Seven" in order to address in full the concerns raised and to ensure that whistleblowers can speak out without fear of reprisal or victimisation and that fear and silence are not encouraged.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

NHS DENTISTRY (EAST STAFFORDSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]

Janet Dean: I welcome this opportunity to raise the concerns of my constituents who have difficulty in finding an NHS dentist. This problem is not confined to east Staffordshire; nor has it recently arisen. It stems from the reduction of dental training places in the 1980s and the dispute between the dental profession and the Conservative Government in 1992, which led to many dentists moving into the private sector. Those practices that loyally remained with the NHS were placed under pressure by patients moving from dentists who had left the NHS.
	It is impossible to determine the exact number of whole-time equivalent dentists offering NHS treatment, because many dentists undertake variable amounts of both private and NHS work. However, the answer that I received in response to a written parliamentary question in March this year showed that the number of dentists per 10,000 population, on a head-count basis, was 2.8 in east Staffordshire, compared with 8.8 in Westminster. Not only do we have a comparatively low number of NHS dentists, but we also have a high demand for regular, routine dental care in east Staffordshire. The uptake rate per hundred of the local population is good compared with the figures for the midlands and for England generally. To some extent, that masks the problems that people have in accessing NHS dentistry in my constituency.
	Those problems can arise when people move into the area, or if they fail to attend for a check-up within 15 months of their last appointment. However, a more difficult situation arises when dentists decide to de-register patients en masse. Such a situation arose in Burton in 2001 and, in March this year, two dentists at one of the only two practices in Uttoxeter notified their NHS patients that they would no longer treat them as NHS patients, following their next appointment. The patients were offered the opportunity to join a private dental health insurance scheme. Indeed, it appeared that the notification letters had been distributed by that scheme, as they had been posted in Winchester, where the company is based.
	Many of my constituents in Uttoxeter who received those letters were extremely angry because, in many cases, they had been with the practice, and the previous dentist at the practice, for most of their lives. They were angry because they were faced with the difficult choice between joining the private scheme, paying for private treatment or having to find an alternative NHS dentist. Some constituents were also angry because they knew that the dental clinic in question had received investing in dentistry funding in 1999, which had helped to increase the amount of NHS dental treatment available in the town.
	It was with great sadness that I reported the decision of those dentists to de-register their patients to the East Staffordshire primary care trust on Monday 1 March 2004, following phone calls from my constituents over the previous weekend. I was particularly saddened by the dentists' decision because I had supported their bid for investing in dentistry funding in 1999. I had also had the pleasure of accepting the invitation to open their new premises in Uttoxeter. Somehow, it felt like a kick in the teeth—no pun intended, but there had to be one, did there not?—that they should decide to take a decision that so badly affected so many of my constituents at a time when the Government had recognised the problems with the current general dental service contract and were in negotiations with the British Dental Association regarding a new contract. The receipt of the letters by my constituents followed about a week after I had publicly welcomed the extra Government funding being made available to support dentists in east Staffordshire from the beginning of the financial year. There is something wrong with a system that leaves 3,500 people without an NHS dentist and where a decision taken by an individual dentist affects so many people. I am disappointed that dentists who have stuck with the NHS through all of the years of pressure within the system since the early 1990s should feel the need to cease to treat NHS patients.
	Dentists give several reasons for ceasing to treat adults as NHS patients. They claim that remuneration has been inadequate in the past and that the proposals put forward in the new contract do not address the perceived underfunding of the service. They also suggest that patients' quality of care will be compromised under the new proposals. Looking at the reduced opening hours of those practices where dentists decide to leave the NHS, it appears that their quality of life improves, but those constituents who cannot register with an NHS dentist pay the price. Some dental practices in my constituency have remained totally or mainly with the NHS, increasing or maintaining their NHS registrations, and I pay tribute to them for their loyalty and dedication to their patients.
	Since 1997, the Government have made dramatic improvements to our health service. In my constituency, that investment has increased the number of people employed at Burton's Queen's hospital by 35 per cent. The number of consultants whom the trust employs has risen from 65 to 92. There are 255 more nurses and midwives, 41 more ancillary staff and a 68 per cent. increase in the number of doctors. There has been an improvement in primary care for my constituents in Winshill, with the opening of a medical centre, made possible by the employment of a GP by the East Staffordshire PCT.
	In spite of funding initiatives for dentistry, such as the investing in dentistry and modernising NHS dentistry programmes, the lack of capacity within NHS dentistry in east Staffordshire remains. I know that the Government are committed to tackling the problem. The importance of retaining NHS dentistry for adults as well as for children cannot be overstated. The issue is about not only the care of teeth, but overall oral health and the early identification of wider disease, which is important. Oral health care should not be jeopardised because people cannot afford to pay into private insurance schemes.
	In east Staffordshire, we are fortunate that our children have low levels of tooth decay because our water supply is fluoridated—naturally in Uttoxeter, and artificially in and around Burton upon Trent. However, we have difficulty in recruiting dentists. I understand that there are currently vacancies for four associate dentists, three in Burton and one in Uttoxeter. The primary care trust has paid for adverts in the "British Dental Journal", but to no avail, and discussions have occurred between the PCT and the Department of Health regarding the recruitment of overseas dentists. Will my hon. Friend indicate the time scale for overseas recruitment and how PCTs can support such dentists?
	The difficulties in recruitment have their origins in the decision in the 1980s to close two dental schools and to reduce the number of places at the Birmingham dental school. One reason why we have a particular difficulty in recruiting dentists in east Staffordshire is that we are on the fringe of the west midlands, and some distance from the nearest dental schools in Birmingham, Sheffield and Manchester. There is a tendency for dentists to practise close to the area in which they have trained, because after five years at university they have often developed close ties to that area.
	I welcome the Government's commitment to open two new dental schools. May I seek my hon. Friend's reassurance that one of those will be in the midlands, bearing in mind the work force problems in the area? At present, all training of dentists, hygienists and therapists takes place in Birmingham, so not only is there a tendency for them to stay in that area, but local students may be hindered in accessing that training in the first place. There are also concerns about the capacity for dental nurse training in the area, as dental practices in east Staffordshire also report difficulty in recruiting and retaining dental nurses, especially as salaries are higher in the private sector. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether an increase in the local training capacity would assist east Staffordshire?
	I commend the efforts of the NHS dentistry support team and the East Staffordshire PCT over recent months in looking for ways to improve the situation in my constituency. Following my representations to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I know that representatives of the new special health authority have been in close contact with Staffordshire primary care trusts and the strategic health authority. I am pleased to say that a new dental access centre has been opened at the Balance street health centre in Uttoxeter for two days a week. That will complement the full-time service at Cross street clinic in Burton and help many people who are displaced by the deregistration of NHS patients to access urgent treatment and pain relief.
	The East Staffordshire PCT has been in discussions with three local dental practices over their potential transfer to personal dental services contracts in advance of the move to local commissioning in April 2005. They are also in negotiation with five practices over grants under the general dental services initiative scheme. I am pleased that the Government made £113,000 available for 2004–05 to East Staffordshire PCT for that purpose. That will help to stabilise capacity at some practices and help others to expand. Will my hon. Friend say whether East Staffordshire PCT could be considered in any further round of funding available through the dentistry support team? Will he also confirm when PCTs are likely to receive their indicative dental services budget, which would allow them to test the requirements for live commissioning in 2005–06?
	I turn to the funding arrangements from 2005. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made a commitment to the British Dental Association that
	"if any dentist wishes to increase his or her NHS commitment now or in the run-up to the new arrangements we will fund that extra commitment and make sure their PCT is adequately resourced to sustain that funding level under the new contract."
	If it proves difficult to fill vacancies for some months, will it still be possible for the necessary funding to be made available to PCTs for the three years from 2005? Indeed, will the historic inequalities in NHS provision be addressed in the funding of dentistry through primary care trusts from next year?
	Can my hon. Friend assure me that it will possible to avoid a postcode lottery in dentistry in future? There is a fear that when PCTs are given cash-limited budgets, they will, after the three-year base contract guarantee period has ended, be forced to prioritise what is commissioned in order to maximise the impact of funding. That could mean that some traditionally provided services might no longer be supported if PCTs are to address the challenges on access of service and oral health inequalities. It is likely that PCTs will vary in the decisions they take at that time.
	I am aware that the Secretary of State for Health is due to set out the Government's plans to strengthen NHS dentistry tomorrow. I hope that that announcement and my hon. Friend's response today will give reassurance that the problems in NHS dentistry that we have seen for many years can be overcome. I hope that dentistry provision can experience the same expansion that has taken place in other sectors of the NHS. I believe that if we can increase the number of NHS dentists in east Staffordshire and elsewhere where there are shortages, more people will be treated as NHS patients rather than as private patients or through private insurance schemes. We may then see the end of the downward spiral, and some of those dentists who have left the NHS may choose to return to the fold.

Stephen Ladyman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on securing this important debate on NHS dentistry in east Staffordshire, on the interest she shows in these important matters, and on the constructive way in which she put her case. I sympathise with her and understand how she feels let down by those dentists who have taken the NHS shilling in order to expand their practice, then decided to abandon the NHS.
	I am well aware of the keen interest that my hon. Friend takes in access to dentistry in her area. I know that she raised the matter with the Secretary of State at oral questions last week, as she has on other occasions, and that she has written to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), on the subject. I want to address not only the specific issues that she raised, but to talk about the programme of action that is under way nationally to reform the overall system. First and foremost, as my hon. Friend said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will make an announcement tomorrow that will detail the Government's plans for improving access to dental services in future. I know that she is eager to hear that announcement, but I hope that she will forgive me if I do not let the cat out of the bag, as that would not do my career any good at all.
	The oral health of the population has improved enormously since the NHS was set up, and the number of dentists has increased year on year. There are now more dentists than ever before—more than 19,000 dentists provide NHS care, compared with just 15,411 in September 1992. While the number of dentists has been going up, we accept that the commitment of dentists to the NHS has fallen. As a result, in some areas people have difficulty accessing NHS dentistry, despite the fact that the Government have increased dentists' fees in line with the doctors and dentists pay review body recommendations, resulting in an increase in fees of 32 per cent. since 1997. We accept that some areas have a serious shortage of NHS dentists. The problem is not new, however, and has its roots in the actions of the previous Government, including the contract debacle of 1990 that led to a fee cut in 1992 and caused dentists to start to move away from NHS dentistry. That might explain how the problems came about but, of course, it does not help us to make progress and solve them. One set of clauses in the new Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, however, which was welcomed by Members from all parties in both Houses, covered the reform of NHS dentistry, and represents the most significant reform of dentistry since NHS dental services were established in 1948.
	The reform will provide a better deal for patients, dentists and the NHS. It will allow dentists to spend more time with patients and provide patients with the dental care that they need. Our policy, therefore, is not to maintain the status quo but to rebuild NHS dentistry and provide a more up-to-date legal framework that will better allow primary care trusts to develop and plan those services strategically. It will enable services to be more responsive to patient needs while improving the working lives of dentists and their teams. The general principles of the new primary dental service were set out in the report "NHS Dentistry: Options for Change", which was published in August 2002. One of its key recommendations was for the local commissioning of a high-quality dental service. It proposed that funding should be devolved to the local level to allow PCTs to secure the provision of a new service. The implementation of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 will enable those changes to be made.
	The existing patterns of NHS expenditure on dentistry reflect the varying willingness of dentists to treat NHS patients. However, we need to move to a system in which the NHS locally decides what is necessary to meet the needs of the local population, and the new arrangements will enable us to do so. Under the new system, we are giving PCTs the responsibility for £1.3 billion of financial resources that are currently held centrally. We have transferred decisions about the commissioning of local services to the local level. At the same time, current spending will be protected. The devolved funding will be used to commission more dentistry locally, for example, through extra sessions for NHS patients. In the short term, however, we accept that there are serious problems with access. Since last year, we have provided new investment totalling £90 million to support PCTs as they get to grips with the new agenda, of which £59 million will support access and £30 million will support IT. The balance of £1   million will support organisational development locally.
	In my hon. Friend's constituency, East Staffordshire PCT is working closely with Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority. They are being supported by the Department of Health in their efforts to improve local dental access by using their share of the access funds—some £1.4 million in Shropshire and Staffordshire in 2004–05. We also aim to bring more dentists back to practice after a career break, and have recently placed advertisements in the national press. The keeping in touch scheme is designed for people on a career break who want to return to practice. We have also begun to recruit dentists from abroad, including Europe and further afield.
	It is not just about dentists but about the whole dental team. We have already increased training places for dental therapists from just 50 to 200, and the first newly trained therapists will be entering the work force in autumn 2006. In addition, there are a number of avenues available to support the training of dental nurses. We are exploring how best to make those more readily accessible to dental practices.
	In the longer term, NHS funding allocations for dental services will need to take oral health needs into account, as general NHS allocations currently do in relation to general health needs. We already have the experience of five years of local commissioning of dentistry under the personal dental services pilot programme, where resources are devolved to the front line. The pilots, now treating 750,000 people a year, have shown what works well and what works less well. The field sites are building on that learning experience to refine a simple but robust base contract, which all PCTs and dentists can have in place for 2005. PCTs are already building up relationships with their local dentists, and we are confident that devolving commissioning responsibility for dentistry to PCTs will enable areas to tailor more appropriate local solutions to any particular access issues that they may have.
	I appreciate the real concerns that my hon. Friend has raised, and can well understand that her constituents may be worried that they will have to wait for those changes to come into effect. East Staffordshire PCT is aware of the problems that local people are having in accessing NHS dental services. At the moment, there are two practices in the area, one at Burton, and the other at Uttoxeter, which are accepting new NHS patients. I am informed by Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority that in the past both of those practices have been forced to stop accepting new registrations due to the high demand.

Janet Dean: My hon. Friend might like to be aware that although one of those practices is accepting new patients, there is a waiting list of several months before someone can see a dentist and join the list properly.

Stephen Ladyman: I accept that point entirely, and that is why the local PCTs are working so hard to try to address those issues.
	While there are dentists in other PCT areas that may have been able to take some of the demand, it is recognised locally and by me that that does not really tackle the underlying problem. The PCT has therefore been working hard to develop a range of local solutions to those difficulties. For example, the PCT has commissioned a dental access centre in Burton, and dental access centre services are now available for two days a week in Uttoxeter. The PCT has used previous grant initiatives to support local practices under the investing in dentistry and modernising NHS dentistry programmes.
	The PCT received £113,000 in grants for 2004–05 under the general dental services initiative scheme and is in negotiation with local dental practices about stabilising and expanding capacity. The PCT is also looking into pooling its £11,000 share of salaried primary care dental service capital funding with other PCTs in Staffordshire in a fund of £55,000, which can be used to improve premises and efficiency across the area.
	The PCT is also in discussion with three dental practices about the potential transfer to personal dental services arrangements in advance of the move to local commissioning in 2005. It is hoped that that will stabilise practices, which otherwise could move further towards private treatment. Work is also under way within the PCT to establish the extent of inequalities in dental health between affluent and relatively deprived communities. In addition, the Department of Health is working closely with local NHS organisations to ensure that they have appropriate support. With the additional funding from the Department, PCTs are now in a position to develop firm plans for the future and are now developing dental action plans to set out how they will use that additional funding.
	I have listened carefully to all of the issues raised by my hon. Friend today. At a national level, a reform programme is in hand, and national support is being provided to those areas that are most challenged until those reforms are safely in place. I know that my hon. Friend wants more practical action, however, so I am happy to announce that further support should soon be available to east Staffordshire from the Department of Health. The Department's dental support team has just decided its next programme of visits, which will include east Staffordshire. The Shropshire and Staffordshire SHA, including the East Staffordshire PCT area, will be prioritised for around 10 of the next tranche of dentists who will shortly be recruited from Europe by the Department of Health. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that as a result of her campaigning, and that of her Labour colleagues in the area, two have been identified for specific vacancies in East Staffordshire PCT.
	I hope that that additional help will please my hon. Friend and, of course, her constituents. The changes will take time, but the framework is in place, and the extra investment and support from the Department should enable much-needed improvements in dental services to be delivered in east Staffordshire.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock.